- 101 - logical examinations by their very nature may re-traumatize the patient by provoking or exacerbating symptoms of post-traumatic stress by reviving painful effects and memories.”382 Similarly, in cases of sexual violence, the Court has emphasized that: […] the investigation must try, insofar as possible, to avoid the re-victimization of the presumed victim or the re-experience of the profoundly traumatic incident. Regarding examinations of sexual integrity, […] the gynecological examination should be made as soon as possible […] if it is considered appropriate to perform it and with the prior informed consent of the presumed victim, during the first 72 hours after the reported act, based on a specific protocol for attention to victims of sexual violence. This does not preclude the gynecological examination being performed after this period, with the presumed victim’s consent, because evidence can be found some time after the act of sexual violence; […] the appropriateness of a gynecological examination must be considered on the basis of a case-by-case analysis taking into account the time that has passed since the alleged sexual violence occurred. […] The authority requesting a gynecological examination must provide detailed reasons for its appropriateness and, should it not be appropriate or if the presumed victim has not given her informed consent, the examination should be omitted, although this should never serve as an excuse for doubting the presumed victim and/or avoiding an investigation.383 282. In the instant case, the Court notes that the CNDH and the CCTI applied the Istanbul Protocol to nine of the eleven women victims in this case, concluding that there were indications of torture and sexual violence. However, the FEVIM did not consider that this information provided sufficient evidence, and ordered that it be repeated by PGR experts. Consequently, the PGR experts applied the Istanbul Protocol to Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez for a second time, one year after the events. They did so without justifying the need to do this or considering the possibility that the existing reports provided sufficient evidence, which could have avoided subjecting them to re-victimization and to re-experiencing the traumatic incident that an appraisal of this kind may represent. 283. Furthermore, the Court notes with special concern that the authorities in charge of the federal investigation focused their efforts on requesting a second application of the Istanbul Protocol and obtaining the statements of the women victims in this case, rather than on securing and safeguarding other evidence. The Court has verified that, consequently, the refusal of some of the women victims in this case to subject themselves again to the traumatic experience of the application of the Istanbul Protocol prejudiced the investigation, and this is revealed by the fact that, finally, the FEVIM waived jurisdiction based on the lack of evidence proving the corpus delicti and those probably responsible. This was despite the fact that the victims submitted items of evidence on numerous occasions in order to prove the probable responsibility of various federal agents; however, from the evidence provided by the State, it would appear that the FEVIM did not process this or give the reasons for rejecting it. 284. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the investigations implemented by the PGJEM and the FEVIM were not conducted with due diligence because: (i) the gathering and handling of the evidence was very inefficient; (ii) the interviews and the medical examinations Cf. UN, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), New York and Geneva, 2004, para. 149, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 255. 382 Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 256. See also, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 196, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 171. 383