under the provisions of Nicaraguan law, they had no legal value, which made necessary an evaluation by the forensic physician, the only physician authorized to issue legal reports of evidentiary value. 29. The State alleges that unproductive efforts were made to examine the child and that, because she refused, the procedure was suspended, a situation beyond the control of the officials. In view of that situation, it states that V.R.P. was transferred to the Managua Institute of Forensic Medicine because it had better facilities to make such an examination. It reports that the child was examined under sedation, and in accordance with proper procedure, to ensure that evidence was obtained of the crime perpetrated against the child and seeking not to pressure her or cause any further impact or psychological and moral trauma. It also states that the medical examinations conducted confirmed the presence of vestiges or traces of a sexually transmitted illness “compatible with that presented by the child, resulting from the vaginal and anal carnal penetration to which she had been subjected.” 25 With regard to the alleged mistreatment by the forensic physician, the State indicates that the forensic report issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine did not refer to any mistreatment, but rather indicates that the child complained of great pain and would not allow herself to be evaluated. Therefore, it was decided to conduct the medical examination under anesthetic. The State denies the petitioner’s allegation that the child was not sedated during the medical examinations. 30. Regarding the lack of protection by the Attorney General’s Office of the rights of the child, the State indicates that “this statement is highly subjective,”26 since the file shows that throughout the process, the Prosecutor was fully and actively involved, as was incumbent upon her as the representative of the victim and of society. Neither is the Attorney General’s Office obliged to adhere steadfastly to all actions of the victim in the proceedings.27 It further alleges that the victim was also represented by her private prosecuting attorney, who acted in accordance with his judgment, not implying that the human rights of the child were being violated. The State indicates that it has fulfilled its function of protecting the rights of the child since, when the petitioner availed herself of remedies with the aim of defending the human rights of her daughter, the authorities responded to her complaints, despite 25 Note from the State of February 14, 2005, MRE/DM-DGOI/218/02/05. 26 Note from the State of December 15, 2005, MRE/SREC-DGOI/842/12/05. 27 In that connection, the State indicates that the prosecutors of the Attorney General’s Office must be governed by the principle of objectivity in carrying out their actions, seeking only proper and impartial application of the law. 10