61 indigenous women face to obtain access to justice, which are generally related to social exclusion and ethnic discrimination.” These barriers can be particularly serious, since they represent forms of “multiple discrimination” because the alleged victims are women, indigenous, and poor. Particularly in cases of the rape of indigenous women, the investigators frequently refute the complaints and place the burden of proof on the victim; in addition, the investigation mechanisms are flawed and even threatening and disrespectful. Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará obliges the State to act with due diligence when investigating and punishing violence against women, giving rise to specific obligations that complement the State’s obligations as regards compliance with the rights embodied in the American Convention. In the present case, the State failed in its obligation to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women, contained in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Lastly, the Commission asked the Court to declare that “the absence of an impartial [and diligent] investigation of torture, and the continuing impunity of those responsible, constitute a failure to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention [Against Torture].” 186. The representatives stated that there had not been a “serious, complete, and effective investigation into the facts [and,] as a result, the impunity of those responsible had subsisted for more than [eight] years.” Among other aspects, the representatives questioned that: i) the authorities did not initiate the investigation of the rape for the offense of torture, taking into account the particularities of the case and, hence, the international standards for the investigation of that type of violation; ii) the Common Public Prosecutor’s Office made serious errors when receiving the victim’s statement, which was not received by competent personnel with experience in dealing with victims, who were aware of the context and would be sensitive to the complainant; iii) the examinations of the victim were neither immediate, nor made by competent professionals, and did not respect the relevant international standards, the “questions that the female doctor asked the victim were not appropriate, because she omitted important matters such as the actions she took after the incident, for example, washing, or changing clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes she was wearing at the time of the rape,” and iv) the authorities did not collect or adequately protect evidence that was fundamental for the investigation. In addition, the State authorities incorporated and assessed the evidence in a biased, isolated and discriminatory manner, which “on several occasions led to the investigation being closed.” In the civil jurisdiction, the State did not take any measure on its own initiative to establish the truth of what happened, but focused all the weight of the investigation on obtaining another statement from the victim and, when they obtained it, the investigation was turned over, a second time, to an authority without jurisdiction. Finally, the representatives affirmed that the State had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention owing to the unjustified delay in the investigation of the rape. 187. Regarding the obligation to punish violence against women, the representatives argued that the State had failed to comply with Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará by failing to ensure the rights of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, because it had not conducted a serious and effective investigation into the incident of which she was a victim, since “the investigation of the rape […] was plagued with irregularities, which resulted in the impossibility of obtaining justice, leaving the case in total impunity.” Finally, based on the same facts, they concluded that the State had failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture. 188. In the response to the application, the State, based on different arguments, denied that it had violated Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Subsequently, Mexico made a partial acknowledgement of