2 II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On April 29, 2008, the Commission received the petition and recorded it as No. 51208. On December 10, 2009, it forw arded the relevant parts of the petition to the Mexican State and requested that it reply w ithin a period of tw o months, in compliance w ith the provisions of Article 30(2) of its Rules of Procedure. The State requested an initial extension on February 17, 2010, w hich w as granted on February 26, 2010. The State’ s reply w as received on July 27, 2010. That communication w as duly conveyed to the petitioners. 6. The IACHR received further information from the petitioners in communications dated May 19, 2010, September 30, 2010, and December 17, 2010 and May 4, 2011. Those communications w ere duly forw arded to the State. Similarly, it received information from the State on December 30, 2010, w hich w as duly forw arded to the petitioners. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 7. The petitioners claim that on May 3 and 4, 2006, state security forces evicted a group of flow er-sellers from a local market in the municipality of Texcoco, in an operation that involved an excessive use of force. This provoked an outburst of community support for the v endors in Texcoco and in San Salvador Atenco, w ith actions that included the blocking of a federal highw ay. A number of confrontations took place betw een the police and the traders and their supporters, w ith property invasions and mass arrests. The petitioners state that over the space of the tw o days, more than 200 people w ere arrested, tw o civilians lost their lives, and 67 federal police officers w ere injured. 8. The arrests included 47 w omen, 11 of w hom are the alleged victims in this case. They report having suffered various forms of physical, verbal, and/or psychological violence at the hands of the police, including sexual attacks such as pinching, bites to their breasts, genital touching, and oral and vaginal rape w ith fingers and other objects. They contend that the sexual violence they endured constitutes a form of discrimination. They also state that the discriminatory nature of the sexual violence against the alleged victims can be clearly seen in the different kind of treatment received by the men w ho w ere arrested. 9. According to the petitioners, the alleged victims concur that the most serious violations took place during their transfer to the Santiaguito Prevention and Social Readaptation Center in Almoloya, state of México, w here they w ere detained illegally. For the transfer, both official and nonofficial vehicles w ere used, and the journey took approximately four hours, w hen under normal conditions it should take no longer than tw o. They claim that the vehicles w ere also carrying male detainees, w ho, along w ith the w omen, w ere piled one on top of the other, as a result of w hich some of them felt as if they w ere suffocating. They w ere forced to cover their faces w ith their ow n clothes. The petitioners claim that some of the alleged victims w ere stripped naked, violently, and that w hen the vehicle arrived at the detention center, they w ere forced to get dressed. They also contend that personal items w ere stolen from some of the alleged victims. Upon entering the detention facility, they claim they w ere beaten. 10. Among the alleged victims w ho w ere arrested in Texcoco on May 3, 2006, the petitioners claim that María Patricia Romero Hernández and Cristina Sánchez Hernández, both of w hom are traders, suffered acts of physical, verbal, and psychological violence at the hands of the police. They also allege that Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, a shop employee, suffered acts of physical, verbal, and psychological violence and attacks of a sexual nature. They claim that the trader Ana