Teresa Fernández Paredes 79 competent authorities did not perform an investigation that was sensitive to the victim’s needs and capable of identifying and punishing those responsible.123 The Court further found that the deficiencies present in the medical examination of the victim were inconsistent with the requirements of a fair and effective investigation in cases of rape of a person in custody. The ECtHR determined that a person who reports having been raped should “be examined, with all appropriate sensitivity, by medical professionals with particular competence in this area and whose independence is not circumscribed by instructions given by the prosecuting authority as to the scope of the examination.”124 In Maslova et al. v. Russia (2008), the ECtHR found that the investigation carried out was inad­ equate, because errors were committed that rendered much of the evidence inadmissible, in vio­ lation of procedural requirements under Article 3.125 The Court wrote that “where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she has been seriously ill-treated by the police in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to ‘secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention,’ requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation.”126 In the abovementioned case of Opuz v. Turkey, the ECtHR found that the authorities’ failure to exercise due diligence to prevent and investigate a domestic violence complaint violated Article 3, but without specifying if it constituted torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.127 “It cannot be said that the local authorities displayed the required diligence to prevent the recurrence of violent attacks against the applicant, since the applicant’s husband perpetrated them without hindrance and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognised by the Convention.”128 In this example, the ECtHR reached its conclusion based on deficiencies including the failure to carry out an official investigation of the victim’s serious allegations, notwithstanding the fact that she later withdrew her complaints and her abusive former partner was merely ordered to pay a fine.129 In more recent cases, the Court has found that rape is a degrading offense for the victim and has emphasized States’ procedural obligations in such cases. Of particular interest in this regard is the case of M.C. v. Bulgaria, in which the ECtHR addressed States’ positive obligation to investigate and prosecute cases of rape by non-State agents as prohibited acts under Article 3. In this case, the Court found that domestic authorities had failed to explore the available possibilities for establish­ ing all the circumstances surrounding the rape of the complainant, and therefore determined that the State did not adequately investigate her allegations.130 It went on to find that the investigation in this case did not comply with the State’s positive obligation to enact criminal law provisions effectively punishing all forms of rape and sexual violence and to apply them in practice.131 The Court cited the jurisprudence of ICL and emphasized the importance of placing the focus on the ECtHR Aydin v. Turkey, op. cit., paras. 105-109. Ibid., paras. 103-109. 125 ECtHR, Maslova et al. v. Russia, Application No. 839/02, Judgment of January 24, 2008, para. 108. Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 46. 2014 126 Ibid., para. 91. 127 ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, op. cit., paras. 166 et seq. 128 Ibid., para. 169. 129 Ibid., para. 170. 130 Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 47. 2014 131 Ibid. 123 124