95 characteristics, they are individuals who tend to lie and to play down their defects and errors, always giving more attention to the satisfaction of their own needs.” They added that “these characteristics are not definitive; as noted, they are only features of a personality [that] in this case was histrionic and dissocial.” They also asserted that “a histrionic trait means that the individual tends to manipulate others, not only during an interview but also by other means; the reference to secondary gains means that there is an unspecified interest that the individual seeks to achieve through their life history.” They also indicated that the inmate with histrionic and dissocial personality traits tends to violate norms and rules.” 453 272. In this regard, expert witness Rebeca Cook stated before the Court that “[t]he characterization of a woman suspected of criminal activity as a ‘bad girl’ allows her maturity and humanity to be denied and, thereby, exempts those in charge of her custody from responsibility.” She asserted that, the characteristics often attributed to women suspected of having committed offenses include: “being assertive, manipulative, lacking credibility, and with a tendency to challenge authority.” The expert witness added that when “[j]udges hold similar gender stereotypes with regard to women suspects, this may result in the decision on the latter’s innocence or guilt not being founded on appropriate evidence, or even that more severe punishments are imposed on them than on women suspects who submit to male authority.” 454 Hence, the Court recognizes and rejects the gender stereotype according to which women suspected of having committed an offense are considered to be intrinsically untrustworthy or manipulative, especially in the context of judicial proceedings. In this regard, the Court has stated that assessments of this nature reveal “a discretional and discriminatory opinion based on the procedural situation of the women […].” 455 273. Meanwhile, expert witness María Jennie Dador stated before the Court that, when investigating cases of sexual violence and torture reported in Peru, the judicial authorities had “accorded too much significance to the medical forensic examinations, the integrity of the hymen or ‘loss of virginity,’ and evidence of physical signs of violence, without considering that, neither at that time nor today, were there or are there technical and scientific or human resources that would allow the justice system to obtain the necessary evidence to charge the assailants.” 456 274. In its judgment of March 1, 2004, the National Terrorism Chamber assessed the psychological evaluations performed by the forensic doctors in January and February 2004 in order to evaluate the admissibility of eliminating probative elements allegedly obtained by means of “humiliating treatment and torture, and also sexual abuse by unknown individuals [because it was] prohibited evidence […].” When referring to these psychological appraisals, the Chamber asserted that they “show that the accused has histrionic and dissocial traits, and the psychological appraisals examined during the deliberations indicated that these characteristics correspond to an immature and insecure personality, that does not easily accept frustration, and that manipulates others in order to obtain advantages.” Moreover, it declared the elimination requested inadmissible, because Gladys Espinoza had given a consistent version of the facts without providing “any kind of self-incriminating version, […]; consequently, there is no causal relationship between the physical ill-treatment that the accused allegedly suffered and the obtaining of inculpatory evidence; thus it can be ruled out that it is prohibited evidence.” 457 In the reasoning of this judgment, the National Terrorism Chamber did not use the content of the 453 10389). Statement by the psychologists M.C.L. and R.M.O. of February 26, 2004 (evidence file, folios 10387 to 454 Affidavit made by expert witness Rebecca Cook on March 27, 2014 (merits file, folios 1135 and 1136). 455 Mutatis mutandi, Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 352. 456 Affidavit made by expert witness María Jennie Dador on March 25, 2014 (merits file, folios 961 to 990). 457 Judgment of the National Terrorism Chamber of March 1, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1513 to 1530).