110. First, the Commission notes that a medical examination of V.R.P. was attempted two days after the complaint was filed. This examination was not carried out due to the attending physician’s aggressive treatment of V.R.P. According to Mrs. V.P.C., the physician said “do not cry anymore, when girls from the countryside come to me (…) I tell them to open their legs and they do it, they do not get scandalized like you.” Furthermore, she maintains that the physician also said “if you will not let me examine you vaginally, I wonder what you will do when I have to examine your anus.” V.P.C. added that the presence of non-medical personnel in the room frightened her daughter. 111. The IACHR considers that this medical examination was not conducted in compliance with the established standards described in this report. The State did not verify that the physician in question was impartial, suitable and trained to perform this type of examination on a victim of sexual violence, particularly a minor. Additionally, the State also did not demonstrate that they offered V.R.P. and her mother the possibility of explicitly stating their preference vis-à-vis the sex of the attending physicians. Furthermore, the State did not explain the presence of non-medical personnel during the examination. The Commission underscores the fact that Mrs. V.P.C. reported that situation repeatedly, consistently, specifically, and in detail. 112. Given the absence of these basic safeguards, the Commission considers credible V.P.C’s account of the psychological mistreatment and denigration suffered by her daughter at the hands of this physician. Furthermore, V.R.P.’s refusal to be examined two days later by a different physician also corroborates the first physician’s behavior. It is worth noting that Mrs. V.P.C. informed State authorities of what occurred during the examination, and that a serious and diligent investigation was not opened thereon. Nevertheless, the IACHR notes that according to the information presented, the State opened no investigation into the matter. By failing to follow up on this complaint, the State was unable to disprove the evidence indicating that these facts occurred. 113. The Commission also emphasizes that the State did not demonstrate to have verified the suitability, independence and impartiality of the attending physician for the second examination on November 24, 2001. 114. Second, in relation to the opportunity to perform a gynecological examination in accordance with the aforementioned standards, the Commission notes that the alleged facts occurred almost one year before the complaint was filed. Notwithstanding, the Commission considers that the State failed in its duty to perform a medical examination on V.R.P. as quickly as possible after receiving the complaint. As indicated above, the State did not present any arguments to disprove the allegations regarding the lack of guarantees vis-à-vis the physicians that attempted to conduct the first examinations on V.R.P. 115. Third, the Commission notes that the visual examination and the reconstruction of the facts were nearly one week after the complaint was filed. It is worth noting that there is no information regarding special measures adopted to protect V.R.P. in her condition as a child victim of sexual violence during these proceedings. The Commission has not received information on the reasons why her participation in these proceedings was absolutely necessary. The case file does not mention V.R.P. having received special psychological support during these proceedings. To the contrary, the Commission considers it especially grave that the presiding judge required V.R.P. to participate, asking her during the proceedings to place herself in the same position, according to her account, in which she had been placed by the aggressor. 116. The Commission finds no reason why it was absolutely necessary for V.R.P. to physically relive such a traumatic experience by placing herself in that position. Under the Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, special procedures should be followed to secure evidence from children who are victims of the crime of rape, in order to reduce the number of interviews, statements, confrontations, and, specifically, all unnecessary contact with the justice process. 186 186 UN, Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime, Guideline 27.