cases, the bearer may be asymptomatic and the receiver (in this case the minor child) may be the party who develops the diseases,” 13 the judicial authorities did not take measures to establish precisely how the child had contracted said illness. She adds that they did not make a peniscopic examination of the accused, which was indicated in order to demonstrate his alleged contraction of the Human Papilloma Virus, with a view to establishing his guilt, despite the various requests submitted to the Judge. 17. The petitioner also states that despite having submitted testimony and diagnoses from the doctors who twice operated on the child V.R.P. to treat the Human Papilloma Virus vaginally and to reconstruct her anus, the Judge ordered other examinations which, because of the way in which they were conducted, caused serious injury to the child. In that connection, the petitioner attached a psychological report issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Supreme Court of Justice, sent to the Judge on November 27, 2001, which indicates “evident signs of emotional distress, trying to cry, apprehension, and fear at the medical examination.”14 18. In that connection, the petitioner alleges that the child was examined three times, on November 21, 24, 27, 2001. Regarding the first examination, when the child refused to be examined, the petitioner states that the Jinotega Department forensic physician told her “if you will not let me examine you vaginally, I wonder what you will do when I have to examine your anus.15 The second examination was conducted in the presence of more than 11 people, and although the child did not want them to touch her, the Assistant Prosecutor did not suspend the examination. She alleges that the third examination was conducted in the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Supreme Court of Justice, and that the child V.R.P. was not sedated, contrary to the psychiatrist’s recommendation. She also states that at the time, no judicial authority or Departmental Prosecutor’s Office existed to protect the rights of the child as part of the proceedings. 19. The petitioner alleges that on November 22, 2001, she sent a letter to the Comprehensive Health Care Systems (SILAIS) of Jinotega Department, complaining of the way in which the examinations had 13 From a document annexed by the petitioner from the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Supreme Court of Justice, Forensic Report, Sex Crime, Conclusion 2. 14 From a document annexed by the petitioner, Psychological Report No. 16275/01, of November 27, 2001, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Supreme Court of Justice. 15 Communication from the petitioner received by the IACHR Executive Secretariat on March 16, 2005. 6