2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On August 2, 2009, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Court an application against the United Mexican States (hereinafter “the State” or “Mexico”), which originated from the petition filed on November 10, 2003, by Valentina Rosendo Cantú (hereinafter “Rosendo Cantú” or “the alleged victim”), the Organización Indígena de Pueblos Mixtecos y Tlapanecos A.C. [the Indigenous Organization of the Mixtec and Tlapanec People] and the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña ‘Tlachinollan’ A.C. [Tlachinollan Human Rights Center of the Mountain], (hereinafter, “Tlachinollan”), and the Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustin Pro Juárez A.C. [The Miguel Agustin Human Rights Center]. On October 21, 2006, the Inter-American Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 93/062 and, on March 27, 2009, it approved Report on Merits No. 36/09,3 pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, in which it made a series of recommendations to the State. This report was notified to Mexico on April 2, 2009 and the State was granted two months to provide information on any actions taken to implement the recommendations. On May 7, 2009 the State requested a one-month extension of the time limit to comply with the recommendations indicated. The InterAmerican Commission ordered the requested extension for June 17, 2009, and requested the State to report on the measures adopted to satisfy the recommendations. After the period lapsed “without the State having presented information regarding the implementation of the recommendations,” on July 31, 2009, the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court. The Commission appointed Florentín Meléndez, Commissioner at the time, and Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and the Deputy Executive Secretary, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and the lawyers, Isabel Madariaga, Rosa Celorio, Fiorella Melzi, and Lilly Ching, specialists of the Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. According to the Inter-American Commission, the application refers to the alleged international responsibility of the State for the “rape and torture” of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu that took place on February 16, 2002; the “lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of the perpetrators” of these facts; “the consequence caused by the facts in the case to the daughter of the [alleged] victim”; “the failure to make adequate reparation to the [alleged] victim and her next of kin”; the “use of the military justice system to investigate and prosecute human rights violations,” and the difficulties encountered by indigenous people, particularly indigenous women, to obtain access to justice and health care.” 3. Based on the above, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 5 (Right to Personal Integrity), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), 11 (Right to Privacy [Honor and 2 In the Admissibility Report No. 93/06, the Commission declared the petition admissible with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 5(1), 7, 8(1), 11, 19, and 25, in relation to Article 1(1), all of the American Convention; as well as to Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (file of attachments to the application, tome I, appendix 2, folio 4053). 3 In Report on Merits No. 36/09, the Commission concluded that the State was “responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Articles 5(1), 11, and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this international instrument. Furthermore, it conclude[d] that the State [was] responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention [on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women] and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Valentina Rosendo Cantú. Regarding her daughter, it conclude[d] that the State [was] responsible for violating Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to […] Article 1(1) of this international instrument” (file of attachments to the application, tome I, annex 1, folio 404).