- 112 - statement is fundamental proof of the fact.424 In this case, the Court observes numerous examples of occasions on which the State authorities accorded excessive importance to the absence of physical evidence, which is particularly serious taking into account that, to a great extent, the absence of this evidence was due to the negligent actions of the same authorities who later required it. The Court has already determined that the refusal by some of the women victims in this case to undergo the application of the Istanbul Protocol a second time prejudiced the investigation, owing to the failure of the FEVIM to adopt other measures, such as taking into account the appraisals that other entities had conducted previously. The Court also emphasizes the statement of the Secretary General of Government of the state of Mexico that it was not possible to open an investigation owing to the absence of gynecological examinations or criminal complaints (supra para. 73), as well as the state Security Agency’s report of May 17, 2006, submitted to the Governor and the PGJEM, which stated that “a possible victim of a violent rape would have injuries that could endanger her life and mental capacity and […] she would have to be hospitalized.”425 These are examples of the excessive importance that the authorities assigned to the physical evidence, contravening the inter-American standards for the investigation of cases of sexual violence. 316. In addition, the Court also notes the re-victimizing effects of the stereotypical and discriminatory treatment that the women received. For example, the authorities in charge of the investigation failed to take steps to avoid subjecting them repeatedly and unnecessarily to the revictimizing and invasive experience of the application of medical and psychological appraisals (supra paras. 282 and 283). The Court also notes that the FEVIM made a partial “social, family and economic report on the complainants; the victim’s background, customs and practices” contrary to the wishes of the eleven women victims in this case.426 In this regard, this Court has indicated that opening lines of investigation into the previous social or sexual conduct of the victims in cases of gender-based violence is merely a demonstration of policies or attitudes based on gender stereotypes. Furthermore, the victim’s consent is essential for any expert appraisal or examination performed on the victim of torture and/or sexual violence. In this regard, the Court considers that the preparation of these reports was unnecessary, because there was no justification as to how the social, family and economic history of the victims would be relevant to verify the corpus delicti and those probably responsible, and was also re-victimizing, especially as these reports were prepared without the victims’ consent. 317. Consequently, the Court finds that the investigation of the torture and sexual violence perpetrated against the women victims in this case was not conducted with a gender-perspective in accordance with the special obligations imposed by the Convention of Belém do Pará. 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. 89, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 248. 424 Activities report of the General Inspectorate of the state Security Agency of May 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 21743). 425 In September 2008, the FEVIM ordered the preparation of a “social, family and economic report on the complainants, the victim’s background, customs and practices.” The November 7, 2008, report issued by the FEVIM established that, in light of the refusal of the women victims in the case to submit to this report, “a visit was made to the domiciles recorded in the preliminary inquiry.” The report analyzed the urbanization of the area where the dwelling was located, the state and conditions of the dwelling, access to services and economic conditions of the inhabitants, all of which was documented with photographs. In December 2008, the complainants filed a complaint against the agent of the federal Public Prosecution Service in charge of the case because this report was prepared against their wishes. Cf. FEVIM report of November 7, 2008 (evidence file, folio 42606), and complaint of the eleven women against the background report filed before the Complaint Area of the PGR Internal Control Body, dated December 18, 2008 (evidence file, folios 24514 and 24515). 426