rape of journalist Jineth Bedoya, who were brought to trial and convicted for the events of May 25, 2000: Armando Lugo, who entered into a plea agreement on February 27, 2015; Mario Jaimes Mejía, convicted on March 18, 2016, and Alejandro Cárdenas Orozco, convicted on February 24, 2016. 120. It also follows from the facts that the authorities opened at least four investigations into the threats against the journalist, according to complaints filed in November 2010, May 2011, June 2011, and September 2011. These investigations were all closed. The State informed the IACHR that it is considering the possibility of ordering the reopening of those investigations, “in order to continue gathering evidence to shed light on the facts alleged by the journalist.” 121. The IACHR observes that the 6th Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Human Rights and IHL Unit conducted the preliminary investigation for 11 years, without being able to establish the facts or identify those responsible for the crimes. It is clear from the case file that this absence of tangible results may have arisen, in part, from the failure to timely conduct and assess the investigative proceedings needed to clarify the facts and identify the direct perpetrators and masterminds, including the possible active or passive participation of State agents in the crimes. For instance, the collection of key evidence—such as cell phone records, security camera footage from the National Model Prison in Bogotá, and copies of the videos from the tolls on the BogotáVillavicencio road—was ordered many years later, by which time it was impossible to obtain. The Commission also notes that the Prosecutor’s Office failed to promptly identify the individuals working as prison guards on May 25, 2000, and it was not until 2010 that the authorities were able to take statements from some prison guards and the inspector of the National Penitentiary and Prison Institute. The aforementioned failures and omissions in obtaining critical evidence demonstrate the State's lack of due diligence in recovering evidentiary material. 122. It is noted that the investigation also failed to include effective measures aimed at determining the relationship between the threats received by Jineth Bedoya before and after her abduction and the perpetrators of the crime. As has been demonstrated, Ms. Bedoya began receiving threats related to her work on the National Model Prison and the internal armed conflict in Colombia long before the events in question. These threats, which have continued to this day, were neither investigated nor clearly introduced a contextual elements of the investigation. 123. In addition, a reading of the case file shows that during the first 11 years of the investigation, the information relevant to the establishment of the facts was provided by the victim, on the basis of what she investigated from journalistic sources. In fact, in some years, the Prosecutor’s Office carried out very few evidentiary proceedings, which were ordered on the basis of the information that Jineth Bedoya contributed to the case through at least seven supplemental statements. In addition to the fact that this places an inadmissible procedural burden on the victim, the IACHR believes that the repetition of these supplemental statements—in which the victim had to refer on numerous occasions to the events of May 25, 2000—had a revictimizing effect on her. The IACHR has emphasized that in cases of sexual violence, insofar as possible, the investigation must try to avoid revictimization or the re-experiencing of the profoundly traumatic experience each time the victim remembers or testifies about what happened.230 124. The IACHR notes that the authorities in charge of the investigation in this case did not follow procedures that were in line with international standards for the investigation of crimes of sexual violence. In cases of violence against women, certain international instruments are useful for clarifying and giving substance to the heightened state obligation to investigate with due diligence. 231 In a criminal investigation of sexual violence, both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have emphasized that it is necessary for the authorities to immediately conduct a full and detailed medical and psychological examination by qualified and I/A Court H.R. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C, No. 215. Para. 196. 231 Cfr. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. HR/P/PT/8/Rev.1, Geneva, 9 August 1999, supra note 36, inter alia, para. 67, 77, 89, 99, 101-103, 155, 162, 163, 170, 171, 224, 225, 260, 269; 290; and World Health Organization, Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence, supra note 36, inter alia, pp. 17, 30, 31, 34, 39-44; 57-74. 230 31