gone to be examined.244 In addition, the prosecutor in charge of the case indicated that the statement made on February 28 was very detailed so that it was not possible to carry out the medical examination that day. Therefore, he ordered “that a detailed medical examination be conducted the following day at 7 a.m.” According to the prosecutor, the presumed victim came “to the prosecution offices after 11 a.m.”245 190. This Court has indicated that, in order to ensure the best preservation of evidence, the gynecological and anal examination, if this is considered appropriate, should be performed during the first 72 hours after the reported incident based on a specific protocol concerning care for victims of sexual violence.246 Considering the time that had passed since the incident occurred, the State should have taken all possible steps to ensure that the examination was performed immediately, or at least before this 72-hour period had elapsed, and this did not happen in this case, even considering the delays that could be attributed to the presumed victim. 191. In addition, the Court notes that, the report of the medical examination did not include an interpretation of the probable relationship between the physical symptoms and the aggressions to which the presumed victim referred. In particular, the Court notes that the examination found recent injuries in the anus and observed that the presumed victim indicated that she had suffered some bleeding. However, the respective conclusion is extremely vague. Indeed, the conclusion indicates: “Anus: old anal fissures with signs of a recent unnatural act.”247 There is no analysis of whether or not the injuries are compatible with an anal rape with a rubber baton. Also, there is no analysis of whether or not the signs of a recent sexual act reveal that it could have been caused by the use of force, or the amount of force that would have been needed to cause that type of injury. On this point, the World Health Organization has indicated that “anal and rectal injuries are seldom seen after consensual penetration.”248 The Court also notes that there is no evidence that the forensic physician was provided with a police baton and/or information on its dimensions that would have allowed him to examine the compatibility of the alleged acts with the injuries found. 249 192. These shortcomings were partially rectified on April 22, 2008, by a medical ratification procedure in which the forensic physician indicated that he “could not affirm that [the injuries] were caused by a regulatory police baton, but owing to the form, it is probable.”250 However, the Court notes that these additional considerations were not taken into account in the request to dismiss the case or in the dismissal decision.251 When making this statement, the presumed victim was asked: “if you can specify whether, owing to the physical aggression you suffered from the police agents, at the present time you have any bodily injury because, to date, you have not gone to the forensic physician to undergo the respective medical examination?” To which she answered “that, I only have a small bruise on my right arm near the armpit.” Cf. Statement made by Azul Rojas Marín the Casa Grande Police Station on February 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2812). 244 Cf. Report signed by the Superior Prosecutor, Head of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of La Libertad of July 24, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2801). 245 246 Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 256. 247 Cf. Forensic Medical Certificate of examination of Azul Rojas Marín on February 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2822). 248 49. World Health Organization, Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence, Geneva, 2003, p. 249 Cf. Medical ratification procedure of July 4, 2019 (evidence file, folio 5671). 250 Cf. Medical ratification procedure of April 22, 2008 (evidence file, folios 5473 and 5474). Cf. Dismissal request of the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal Prosecutor of Ascope of October 21, 2008 (evidence file, folios 83 to 100), and Order to dismiss the proceedings of January 9, 2009, issued by the Ascope First Preliminary Investigation Court (evidence file, folios 2954 to 2969). 251 51