policies and practices, particularly in reasoning and language. of state authorities.303 In particular, the Court has recognized that personal prejudices and gender stereotypes affect the objectivity of state officials in charge of investigating the complaints presented to them, influencing their perception to determine whether or not an act of violence occurred, in their evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and the victim themselves. Stereotypes “distort perceptions and lead to decisions based on preconceived beliefs and myths, rather than facts,” which in turn can lead to denial of justice, including the re-victimization of complainants.304 164. In this case, it is noted that, in addition to the high indicence of impunity in cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents that existed in Bolivia at the time,305 gender stereotypes were used by some justice officers to refer to the alleged victim’s personal attributes and thus question the existence of sexual violence. In fact, during the first trial, the Trial Court modified ex officio the criminal offense from rape to statutory rape after having glimpsed “certain personality traits of […] Brisa”,306 such as her “strong personality”, based on which it concluded that “it is not possible to conceive that Brisa has been intimidated by [the accused].”307 Furthermore, during that same trial, while the alleged victim was giving her testimony, one of the citizen judges questioned her rape because Brisa had not screamed. These stereotypes reinforce the misconceived and discriminatory idea that a victim of sexual violence has to be “weak”, appear “defenseless”, react or resist aggression.308 165. The Court also notes the use of gender stereotypes in the questions addressed to the witnesses during the oral trial held between March 17 and 28, 2003. It should be noted that, although most of these questions were not posed by state authorities, they, especially the judges, were responsible for directing the process and, therefore, preventing interrogations permeated by gender stereotypes. Although the court record of that first hearing does not include the witnesses’ answers, but only the questions that were asked, the Court notes that the defendant's lawyers questioned the witnesses, asking them, for example, " Why did you leave a young girl alone with a young man?” “From what age have you, as a couple, allowed Brisa to wear makeup or dress up?” “How many boyfriends has [Brisa] had?” “How did Brisa dress before November, did she wear dresses, makeup or adornments?"; “Is it impossible for a teenager to fall in love with one of her relatives in a healthy way? Have you heard of the theory of 'provocative victims'?"; "How would you rate Brisa in terms of her character and her manner of acting? Was she like that with everyone? Didn't she take off her sweater? How old was Brisa? How many years ago did you see Brisa conquer someone? Did you see Brisa at that sleepover 303 Cf. mutatis mutandis, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401. Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 173, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 320. Similarly, UN, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. General Recommendation No. 33: Women's access to justice, CEDAW/C/GC/33, August 3, 2015, para. 26. 304 305 According to the amicus curiae filed by The Global Women's Institute, Together for Girls, Futures Without Violence, The Equality Institute, Prevention Collaborative, Children's Institute at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI), Raising Voices, BRAVE Movement, MenEngage Alliance, Natasha Stott Despoja, Lauren Fite, Raúl R. Herrera and Charlotte Bunch, in 2006 only 11.04% of reported cases of sexual violence against children and adolescents received a judicial response and 0.04% received a response from the criminal courts (merits file, folio 1196). 306 At the same time, when referring to the personality of the aggressor, the Court considered it relevant that he was “27 years old, single and without children, [with] higher education in Veterinary Medicine.” In addition, it pointed out that it was important in setting the sentence “the youth of the accused and his family social relationships, would be seriously affected.” Cf. Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4, supra (evidence file folio 7668). 307 Cf. Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4, supra (evidence file folios 7667,7668,7673). According to expert Mesa Peluffo, “in general gender stereotypes tend to consider that an ideal woman is a modest woman, she is a weak woman, she is a woman who cannot face things, she is a woman who also considers a woman’s word doesn’t count. A very common stereotype is that adolescent girls lie, that adolescent girls are promiscuous, so the application of those stereotypes, when people have those stereotypes and have not analyzed them, let's say, have not worked on them, the stereotypes will be reflected in the way they investigate and the way they decide. Then we're going to start finding out which are the good victims and which are the bad victims. In the case of Brisa, for example, it is argued that since she was a very strong girl, she could have stopped the aggressor, that is a stereotype that evidently guided the court in that case. Cf. Expert opinion of Sylvia Mesa Peluffo, supra. 308 54