215. The Court notes that the forensic medical examination conducted by the State established that the presumed victim required 8 disability days,283 so that there can be no doubt that Ms. Rojas experienced physical consequences from the ill-treatment for several days. The considerations concerning the activities carried out by Ms. Rojas Marín represent a preconception by the authorities of how a rape victim should act. 216. The judge also indicated that “the facts took place in the early morning hours of February 25 [… and] the forensic medical examination of [the presumed victim] and [the examination of the clothing were carried out on February 29], that is, almost four days after the incident. This lack of immediacy in the implementation of the said expert appraisals raises a reasonable doubt that [the injuries found] were caused on the day of the event and by the accused, and it could be presumed that they may have been produced after the day of the event.”284 217. The Court has indicated that the failure to perform a medical examination of a person who is in the State’s custody, or implementing this without complying with the applicable standards, cannot be used to question the truth of the presumed victim’s allegations of illtreatment.285 The Court has already concluded that the delayed medical examination and the failure to secure the presumed victim’s clothing immediately can be attributed to the State (supra paras. 190 and 195). In this regard, the State authorities gave excessive importance to the possibility that the physical evidence was not related to the alleged rape, which was particularly serious taking into account that the injuries found during the medical examination, their ratification, and the evidence found on the presumed victim’s clothing are congruent with the occurrence of the rape of Ms. Rojas Marín with a police baton. 218. In sum, the judicial authorities failed to take into account the particularities of the investigation of torture and rape, unduly discrediting the presumed victim’s statements, failing to accord the necessary importance to the expert appraisals that were carried out, and assuming that the presumed victim��s injuries were self-inflicted. B.5 Conclusion 219. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure these rights without discrimination and to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Azul Rojas Marín. VII-5 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF AZUL ROJAS MARÍN’S MOTHER 286 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 220. The Commission considered it “reasonable to establish that the seriousness of the events that occurred, added to the absence of a prompt and adequate judicial response, had 283 2822). Cf. Forensic Medical Certificate of examination of Azul Rojas Marín on February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio Cf. Order to dismiss the proceedings issued by the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court of January 9, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2962). 284 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 333, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 152. 285 286 Article 5 of the Convention. 57