does not report owing to the stigma that this report usually entails. 193 Thus, it is reasonable that Ms. Rojas Marín did not mention the rape in the report made in the media or in the first oral complaint made at the police station. 149. In sum, the Court considers that, aside from some details, the different statements made by Ms. Rojas Marín before the domestic authorities are consistent, which reinforces their plausibility. B.2 Forensic medical examination 150. On February 29, 2008, at 12:30 p.m., the forensic medical examination requested by the prosecutor was performed. The report indicated that the presumed victim “walks with slight difficulty owing to the pain, sits down slowly and then seeks an antalgic position.” It describes swelling on the head, an injury to the lip and bruising on the arms. It also indicates: Anus: folds present, presence of recent upper perianal fissure of +3 x 0.5 cm and recent inferior perianal fissure of +2 x 0.2 cm, painful to the touch. Presence of recent anal fissures [… and] presence of earlier anal fissures. 151. The report concluded that Ms. Rojas Marín had: “(1) recent extragenital traumatic injuries caused by someone else with a blunt instrument; (2) no recent para-genital traumatic injuries, and (3) anus: old anal fissures with signs of a recent unnatural act.” The report indicates that she required 8 disability days. 194 In a medical expertise to ratify those findings, the forensic physical indicated that the injuries described in the forensic medical certificate “cannot prove that […] they were caused by a police baton, but owing to the form, this is probable.”195 152. In the course of the investigations conducted in 2019, the forensic physician indicated in a ratification procedure that, to determine whether the injuries were compatible with the attempt of forcible penetration of the rectum with a police baton, he would have to see the police baton and know the measurements of the said object. 196 Additionally, a forensic medical certificate issued on November 4, 2019, indicated that “[i]n a recent examination performed of the person evaluated, old injuries were found that are consistent with the act described (in other words, scars in the anal region located in the same place as indicated in the initial forensic medical certificate […]).” In this regard, the report indicated that “the description of the facts made by the presumed victim, as well as the injuries produced are those that are generally found with this type of act.”197 153. It should be pointed out that the absence of physical signs does not mean that illtreatment did not occur, because it is frequent that such acts of violence against an individual do not leave permanent traces or scars. 198 The same is true for cases of sexual violence and rape in which the occurrence is not necessarily reflected in marks or scars during a medical Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 95, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 150. 193 194 Cf. Forensic Medical Certificate of February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2193). 195 Cf. Medical ratification procedure of April 22, 2008 (evidence file, folios 5473 and 5474). 196 Cf. Medical ratification procedure of July 4, 2019 (evidence file, folio 5671). 197 Cf. Forensic Medical Certificate of November 4, 2019 (evidence file, folios 5469 to 5471). Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 329, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 192. 198 41