34 intensity pain in the hypogastric region.”114 This data coincides with the narration of the aggression Mrs. Rosendo Cantu states she suffered. 102. In the present case, the Court notes that, apart from the statements of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, the Court has circumstantial evidence regarding the alleged facts. The Court has established that use of circumstantial evidence, the signs and the presumptions to found a Judgment, are legitimate, “when from it, a consistent conclusion regarding the facts can be inferred.”115 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the burden of proof that founds the argument is the responsibility of the plaintiff, in principle; nevertheless, the Court has highlighted that, contrary to domestic criminal law regarding violations of human rights, the State’s defense cannot rest on the plaintiff’s inability to present evidence, when it is the State who controls the means to clarify the facts within its territory.116 103. It appears in the case file of the present case, that once the facts were made known to the authorities, the victim did not receive any psychological attention in order to obtain better information to clarify the facts, nor were various examinations carried out, among others, evidentiary tests, used to determine the veracity of what had occurred (infra para. 179). In this regard, it is important to note that which was acknowledged by the State as of the complaint filed on March 8, 2002, in the sense that from then there was a delay in the provision of specialized medical care to Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, as one month passed and she was not seen until March 19, 2002, when she was examined by a medical examiner adjoined with the agency of the Common Public Prosecutor’s Office. The State did not present the Court with advances in the investigation initiated by the authorities that would suggest otherwise in light of the evidence that indicates the existence of rape by the soldiers. The Court states that, to the contrary, the defense of the State is supported by a lack of awareness of whether the rape occurred and by whom it was perpetrated, which is attributable to its own authorities. From the moment the State had knowledge of the existence of a rape committed against an individual who is a member of a particularly vulnerable group given her status as indigenous and as a girl child, it had the obligation to carry out a serious and effective investigation so as to confirm the veracity of the facts and to determine those responsible for the facts. 104. Given that more than eight years have passed since the facts occurred, the State has not provided any evidence in the proceedings of the present case that would contradict that the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu took place, the Court considers it reasonable to grant weight to the evidence and the presumptions that arise from the case file (supra para. 102) regarding the occurrence of a rape by the soldiers against Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. To conclude the contrary would mean that the Court permits the State to seek protection in their negligence and ineffective criminal investigation so as to diminish their responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention.117 105. As indicated by the Court since its first contentious case, for an international tribunal the criteria for the assessment of evidence is less formal than in the domestic 114 Cf. Medical gynecological certificate of March 19, 2002, sent by the medical examiner of the Office of the Attorney General of Justice of the State, by means of Order No. 130/80/02/62/2002 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 17, folio 490). 115 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 33, para. 130; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Excepciones Preliminares, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 127, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 66. 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 33, para. 135; Case of Escher et al., supra note 115, para. 127, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 89. 117 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 97