A/HRC/7/3 page 22 members.”83 At the next stage, women victims of sexual violence may be interviewed and examined by personnel that have not been trained in gender-sensitive methods of recording evidence and interviewing. Moreover, collecting evidence of gender-based violence is a neglected area in many law enforcement contexts. In some countries, there might not be independent medical institutions to conduct such examinations; in others laws do not require police to send alleged rape victims for an immediate medical examination. One of the most egregious examples of re-victimization of rape victims, taken up on several occasions by the Committee against Torture, is when domestic laws and policies permit exemption from punishment of a rapist if he subsequently marries the victim.84 62. Also rules of procedure and evidence of national courts may overlook women-specific needs: they often require evidence of physical resistance by the victim in order to show lack of consent, which means that women who were too terrified to fight back and struggle with the perpetrator may be unable to prove that they were raped. Also courts frequently ignore “soft” evidence such as psychological assessments (“battered woman syndrome”). Furthermore, in some countries a rape victim must present eye witnesses in order to prove that the crime took place, which is obviously problematic in cases of sexual violence. Evidence of the prior sexual conduct of the victim is also frequently used during trials of crimes of sexual violence, in an attempt to prove that the victim is predisposed to promiscuity and therefore consented to sex on the occasion in question. The admission of this type of evidence increases the trauma of testifying, as women may be humiliated and forced to expose aspects of their private lives that are irrelevant for the crime being tried. Another particular dilemma is the double requirement for a victim to show that on the one hand the act of violence was traumatizing, but that on the other hand, this does not limit the credibility of the testimony. 63. In this regard, much can be learned from international criminal courts. The Furundzija decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia clearly stated that post-traumatic stress disorder does not affect the credibility of the witness. It was the first international court to adopt a rule prohibiting the admission of evidence relating to the prior sexual conduct of the victim.85 Also the rules of the International Criminal Court (ICC) explicitly provide that silence or lack of resistance cannot be used to imply consent, and that consent cannot be inferred from the words or conduct of the victim if the victim was subjected to force, threats of force or a coercive environment.86 The Special Rapporteur further stresses that in situations where the perpetrator has complete control over the victim the issue of consent becomes irrelevant. 83 V.L. v. Switzerland, CAT/C/37/D/262/2005, para. 8.8. 84 See concluding observations on Burundi, CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 11; Guatemala, CAT/C/GTM/CO/4, para. 19; and Cameroon, CAT/C/CR/31/6, para. 7 (c). 85 In this regard see also rules 70 and 71 of the ICC Rules of Procedures and Evidence, as well as article 69, paragraph 4, of the Rome Statute. 86 See rule 70, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the ICC Rules of Procedures and Evidence.