VII-4 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION215 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 168. The Commission argued that the investigation and the criminal proceedings conducted in the domestic sphere “contravened the obligations to protect and to provide care for a victim who reports sexual violence, with the aggravating factor of the prejudice that exists with regard to LGBTI people.” It indicated that “initially, there was a delay in providing the appropriate means to obtain evidence to clarify what happened,” and that “in this type of case, a delay […] may be significant.” It considered that the information provided by Azul Rojas Marín “should have been sufficient evidence for the State to activate its reinforced duty” to investigate possible acts of violence based on prejudice, and this did not occur. It stressed that the authorities performed a [forensic medical] examination without providing the victim with any kind of “counseling or support.” It observed that the forensic medical examination “made a superficial assessment” without “verifying, in the greatest possible detail, the specific aggressions that she described having suffered” and indicated that this examination report included “irrelevant statements about Azul Rojas Marín’s private life and negative gender stereotyping”; also, that the psychological assessment discredited “the victim and […] her credibility,” constituting “an additional form of revictimization.” Lastly, the Commission considered that, the Ascope Prosecutor’s decisions not “to expand the investigation to include the crime of torture” and to dismiss the case “used an analysis methodology based on comparing the statements of the victim with those of the agents involved, and failed to make a comprehensive analysis.” 169. The representatives argued that there were “numerous acts and omissions of State officials in the investigation of the unlawful detention, sexual violence and torture.” They indicated that Azul “went to file a complaint with the Casa Grande Police Station, where the acts took place, the day after her release,” and they refused to receive the complaint because “the police agents alleged that their chief was not there at that time.” They added that the prosecutor “failed to order a forensic medical examination for the offense of rape immediately, or to require the custody of key evidence, such as the clothes that Azul was wearing on the day of the incident.” The argued that “the forensic medical examination was not performed by appropriate personnel, trained in cases of torture,” and that Azul received no medical or psychological care from the State. They indicated that “the procedure to obtain her statement […] was not carried out privately and respecting the victim.” 170. They also argued that “the preliminary investigation was fraught with irregularities, deficiencies and gaps.” Therefore, “it was clear that the judicial authorities and the Public Prosecution Service acted in a discriminatory way, applying stereotypes. The representatives considered that the lack of an adequate investigation was discriminatory because “the prosecution’s file does not show that any procedures were conducted to clarify whether the facts” were related to the “sexual orientation and non-normative gender expression” of Azul Rojas Marín even though “these elements were mentioned from the start of the investigation.” They indicated that “in this case, Azul Rojas Marín faced discrimination and prejudices based on her sexual orientation and non-normative gender expression from the start of the investigation, reflected in the minimization of the facts, the discrediting of her statements, the disparaging references, and other actions by the agents of justice.” They considered that “her complaint was not handled by an impartial prosecutor owing to the presence of negative stereotypes about Azul.” 215 Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 45