- 111 - investigation with a gender perspective, as the case required. In addition, the investigation of the acts denounced by the women was characterized by discriminatory, stereotypical and revictimizing statements and conducts, infringing the right of access to justice of the women victims in this case. 311. The Court has also referred to the stereotyped violence of which the women were victims, by being humiliated based on stereotypical and re-victimizing assertions by some authorities (supra para. 219). However, the effect that these assertions may have had on the diligence with which the investigations were conducted, especially at the initial stages, remains to be analyzed. 312. In this regard, during the public hearing before this Court, expert witness Julissa Mantilla explained that the humiliation of a victim by senior officials not only re-victimizes a woman, but also has an impact on the care and diligence with which the judicial officials undertake the investigation. This may have particularly serious effects when, as in this case, this occurs at the outset of the investigation, which is when the greatest speed and diligence is required of the authorities.422 313. In this case, the Court observes that it was stated that the women “for reasons of modesty, had not let doctors examine them,” which was particularly vexatious because most of the women were denied a gynecological examination, even though some of them had expressly requested this, even having to resort to a hunger strike (supra para. 109). Furthermore, the women were disbelieved by denial of the sexual violence because no complaints had been filed, when this was not only irrelevant, because the obligation to investigate arises when evidence exists, irrespective of the existence of a complaint, but was also false, since several of the women had tried to file complaints about the facts and the authorities had not allowed this (supra para. 105). The Court also notes the use of expressions aimed at relieving the perpetrators of responsibility or justifying their acts; for example, by reducing the police abuse to a consequence of stress, as well as the perpetration of stereotypes relating to the lack of credibility of women, attributing the complaints to tactics of “insurgent groups” or “radicals” (supra para. 74). In short, the Court notes that statements of this type are not only discriminatory and re-victimizing, but also create an adverse climate for the effective investigation of the facts and encourage impunity. 314. The Court also notes that the women were also denigrated by the treatment they received from the officials in charge of the investigation. For example, during the public hearing before this Court, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno stated that, the whole time, she felt that questions were being raised with regard to her behavior and regarding what she had done to deserve what happened to her.423 The attitude of one of the doctors (whose duty it was to treat the women and document the acts reported) towards Claudia Hernández was particularly disturbing, when he said that he did not believe her and called her a “radical” and “filth” (supra para. 104). 315. This Court has indicated, with regard to rape, that given the nature of this form of violence, the existence of graphic or documentary evidence cannot be expected and, therefore, the victim’s Cf. Expert opinion provided by Julissa Mantilla during the public hearing held before this Court. Similarly, expert witness Rebeca Cook indicated that “[d]enigrating victims sends a message that the State does not consider them worth protecting against violence or the State resources required to conduct an effective criminal investigation into their complaints of violence.” She added that “stereotypical comments influence the conduct of all the public authorities, justifying the State’s inaction and its failure to prevent, punish and/or eradicate violence against women” (merits file, folios 976 and 977). 422 423 Statement by Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno during the public hearing before this Court.