29 3. 4. 5. Taking advantage of her current situation, she manipulates constantly to earn “pity,” thus seeking a “secondary gain.” Her mental processes are controlled, and she assesses reality with objectivity. A selective intention to respond to nonsubversive situations is noted. C. CONCLUSIONS 1. 2. The detainee Gladys ESPINOZA GONZALES (39), at the time of her examination, showed a situational “depressive state,” and managed to evolve favorably. She handles her mental processes with objectivity, with a forced (simulated) attitude in 119 order to achieve a “secondary gain.” 135. Several years later, between January and February 2004, psychologists from the Legal Medicine Institute examined Gladys Carol Espinosa and reached the following conclusion: The person examined shows no symptoms or signs of mental distress preventing her from grasping reality; in other words, she is aware of her actions. She displays a histrionic disorder, which does not prevent her from contact with reality except when 120 she disassociates herself. 136. The expert assessment given to the IACHR by Dr. Carmen Wurst de Landázuri contains an evaluation of the two psychological examinations described above. Regarding the first examination, Dr. Wurst noted that the diagnoses of a “situational depressive state” and a “forced (simulated) attitude” are, from a clinical point of view, contradictory. In addition, she stated that the professional who signed the psychological evaluation, Capt. Damian R. Fernández Hoyo of the National Police, is not registered 121 with the corresponding professional association. 137. Regarding the expert psychological report produced by the Legal Medicine Institute in early 2004, Dr. Carmen Wurst said that: the diagnosis seeks to demonstrate that the patient has faked, through her histrionic characteristics, the torture episode. That is absolutely improbable and incorrect, since such reactions and symptoms are NORMAL and TO BE EXPECTED and, quite the contrary, they indicate the aftermath of torture in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. The report therefore CONFIRMS that Gladys Carol Espinoza was subjected to acts of torture that left IRREVERSIBLE 122 mental aftereffects that are characteristic of victims. 138. Dr. Carmen Wurst added that although the Legal Medicine Institute has a guide for evaluating torture cases, in line with the international standards set out in the Istanbul Protocol, the evaluation of Gladys Carol Espinoza was performed “on the basis of mental and psychological examinations, such as would be used for any evaluation; it does not take into account the context and the 123 relationship existing between the symptoms and the torture and rape she suffered.” In her own assessment of Gladys Carol Espinoza’s symptoms, Dr. Carmen Wurst concluded that: 119 Annex 21: Report No. 052-ODINFO-DINCOTE, signed on April 26, 1993 by Capt. Damian R. Fernández Hoyo and Maj. Eloy Castillo Castillo, psychologists of the National Police of Peru; enclosed with the State’s communication of October 15, 2010, and received by the IACHR on October 18 of that year. Underlinings and quotation marks per original. 120 Annex 18: Medical Examiner’s Certificate No. 003821-V, issued by the Legal Medicine Institute after examining Gladys Carol Espinoza on January 27 and February 9, 2004, p. 7. 121 Annex 17: Psychological report by Dr. Carmen Wurst Calle de Landázuri of October 8, 2008, based on interviews with Gladys Carol Espinoza at Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison, Introduction, p. 1. 122 Annex 17: Psychological report by Dr. Carmen Wurst Calle de Landázuri of October 8, 2008, based on interviews with Gladys Carol Espinoza at Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison, Introduction, p. 1. 123 Annex 17: Psychological report by Dr. Carmen Wurst Calle de Landázuri of October 8, 2008, based on interviews with Gladys Carol Espinoza at Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison, Introduction, p. 1.