with abnormal or suspicious attitudes towards someone? […] on the day of the sleepover did you see Brisa and […] kissing each other?”, and “did you see Brisa fall in love with [E.G.A]?” The Prosecutor asked José Miguel de Angulo if “on some occasion Brisa found him viewing pornographic sites.”309 166. The Court warns that the State was faced with a report of rape committed against a girl, and due to her situation of double vulnerability previously indicated and in the terms of articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention, Bolivia had to adopt positive measures to guarantee effective and equal access to justice, in the terms already established by this Court (supra paras. 95 to 107). In this regard, the Court recalls that it has already referred to the information on the process and the comprehensive care services available; the right to participate and have opinions taken into account; the right to free legal assistance; the specialization of all participating officers; and the right to have medical, psychological and psychiatric assistance services that support their recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration. In this case, it was demonstrated that said measures, which were necessary to guarantee Brisa material equality in the criminal process, were not adopted, so there was intersectional discrimination in access to justice, for reasons of gender, as well as the victim's status as a girl. 167. Furthermore, it was up to Bolivia to heighten protection measures in favor of Brisa so as not to prejudice her by causing further harm with the investigation process, understanding that all decisions adopted must obey the main purpose of comprehensively protecting the rights of children, safeguarding their subsequent development, ensuring their best interests, and avoiding their revictimization. 168. In this case, the State required the girl to undergo two unnecessary gynecological examinations and to be interviewed on several occasions to recount the events, among other acts analyzed above. Furthermore, the actions of the forensic doctor and their team were discriminatory, by not considering Brisa's right to be heard and to provide her consent, when she asked for the medical students to leave the examination room or she resisted and expressed pain and anguish at the start of the medical examination. This added to the lack of comprehensive care for the victim, increased the trauma suffered, maintained existing post-traumatic stress and prevented the girl's recovery and rehabilitation, the impact of which still has an effect on her personal integrity to this day. Consequently, the Court considers that the way in which the investigation into Brisa’s rape was conducted was discriminatory and not carried out with a gender perspective and enhanced protection of the rights of the child, in accordance with the special obligations imposed by Article 19 of the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 169. In view of the above, the Court considers that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee, without gender-based discrimination and the victim’s condition as a developing person, the right of access to justice, pursuant to Articles 8(1), 19 and 25(1) of the American Convention, established in Articles 1(1) and 24 thereof and Articles 7(b) and 7(e) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Brisa de Angulo Losada. 170. Additionally, the Court considers that in this case the State became a second aggressor, by committing various revictimizing acts that, taking into account the definition of violence against women adopted in the Convention of Belém do Pará, constituted institutional violence. Indeed, Article 1 of the Belém do Pará Convention indicates that “violence against women should be understood as any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.” Similarly, said instrument highlights that said violence includes that which is perpetrated or tolerated by the State or its agents, wherever it occurs. Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 28, 2003 (evidence file, folios 9640, 9644, 9647, 9648, 9659, 9661, 9666 and 9667). 309 55