134. In this case, the State was faced with a serious act of sexual violence against a woman and child, which, as indicated, constitutes a manifestation of the socially prevalent discrimination against women. As such, the State was obliged to not only abstain from discriminating against or re-victimizing the victim during the investigation and trial, but also to carry out a serious, diligent and effective investigation in order to clarify the facts and punish the person responsible. 135. The Commission observes that, in addition to the consequences arising from the lack of due diligence established in the previous section, various aspects of the investigation demonstrate the State’s failure to comply with its reinforced obligation to take into account V.R.P’s double vulnerability as a woman and child victim of sexual violence. For example, the IACHR notes the behavior of the attending physician during V.R.P’s first examination – which was not disputed by the State by means of a serious investigation – and the judge’s request that V.R.P. participate directly and place herself in the position in which she had been raped by the aggressor, without any form of psychological support. 136. Likewise, the IACHR recalls that the influence exerted by discriminatory socio-cultural patterns may cause a victim’s credibility to be questioned in criminal cases involving violence. 196 The State has not accounted for the manner in which it took into consideration the consistent statements made by V.R.P. at the time of determining the responsibility of the accused, or the manner in which it evaluated the available evidence. The Commission considers that there is enough evidence to conclude that the impunity in which this case remains is precisely due to the lack of due diligence described in the previous section of this report. In this sense, if an act of violence against a woman or girl remains in impunity due to the actions and omissions of the State, the Commission considers it possible that the impunity itself constitutes a perpetuation of the discrimination manifested by the violence, as well as a form of discrimination vis-à-vis access to justice. 137. As indicated by the Court, the impunity of the crimes committed sends the message that violence against women is tolerated; this leads to their perpetuation, together with social acceptance of the phenomenon, the feeling women have that they are not safe, and their persistent mistrust in the system of administration of justice.197 138. In conclusion, the Commission considers that there is enough evidence in this case to conclude that the State is also responsible for violating the principle of equality and non-discrimination established in Article 24 of the American Connection in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of V.R.P, as a result of the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the subsequent impunity of an act of violence committed against her as a woman and child. 1.5.3. Right to a hearing within a reasonable time 139. Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes the right to a hearing within a reasonable time as an element of due process. In this sense, a long delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of the principle of due process,198 and it is for the State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable, in principle, to deliver final judgment in a specific case. 199 196 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, January 20, 2007, par. 155. Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2006. Series C No. 205, par. 400. 197 198 Inter-American Court. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 160. 199 Inter-American Court. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 142.