41 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú told the doctor at the Caxitepec clinic that she “received blows with military weapons” and in response to the doctor’s question, on two occasions, of whether she had been raped, she responded no, to which the doctor treated the abdominal pain, prescribing painkillers and anti-inflammatory medication.139 The Court does not have sufficient proof to conclude that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was not cared for by the doctor because of his fear of the soldiers,140 as reported by the representatives, stating that the doctor at the health center in Caxitepec did offer the primary medical assistance requested.141 Likewise, in the medical consultation at the Ayutla Hospital on February 26, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú told the doctor that “10 days ago a piece of wood [had fallen] on her abdomen, causing pain,” without it being apparent to the Court that she mentioned the raped, and she was only treated for the pain she mentioned; the doctor requested a urine examination and gave the patient pain killers.142 Lastly, the Court does not rely on sufficient evidentiary elements to determine whether on February 25, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú went to the Ayutla Hospital and was denied attention for not having an appointment.143 131. Taking into account the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State and the related damages, inter alia, with the filing of the complaint and the obstacles faced in the pursuit of justice, the Court declares that Mexico violated the right to personal integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same. 132. On the other hand, the Court deems that it is not necessary to rule on the arguments based on the same facts and decides to carry out the related assessment of a violation to the rights of the child derived from Article 19 of the Convention in Chapter X of the present Judgment (infra paras. 197 to 202). ii) Personal integrity of the next of kin of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú 133. The Commission noted that because of the facts, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was abandoned by her husband and she had to move to Chilpancingo along with her 139 Cf. Clinical history of the Bernardino Rosendo family, supra note 74, folio 7756, and statement of the doctor adjoined to the Center for Rural Health for Dispersed Populations with its headquarter in Caxitepec, on March 22, 2002, before the Inspector General of the CODDEHUM (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome I, annex 1, folios 7731 and 7732). 140 Brief of complaint filed by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and Mr. Bernardino Sierra before the NHRC, supra note 64, folios 7555 to 7561; statement of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú in the case file of the complaint CODDEHUMVG/065/2002-II (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 3, folios 5044 to 5230), and statement of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú during the public hearing, supra note 96. On its behalf, of the evidence in the case file there is evidence that the doctor who saw her on that occasion, indicated before the CODDEHUM that “he never said he would not see her due to fear of the soldiers who had beaten her [but rather] that the attention given to her was normal just like with any other person seen in [the] community,” supra note 139, folio 7732. 141 Cf. Order of Conclusions of the National Human Rights Commission, case file 2002/597-4, issued on December 11, 2002, supra 108, folios 7792, 7794 and 7796). 142 The NHRC in its Order of Conclusions established that “when [Mrs. Rosendo Cantú] went to said health clinic, she did not mention that she had experienced any sexual agression, but rather that she felt pain because a tree branch had fallen on her abdomen; and, at said moment, no studies or gynecological revision was carried out for the alleged sexual abuse, that which [Mrs. Rosendo Cantú] accepted given that she did not tell the doctors for fear of not being seen,” Order of Conclusions of the National Human Rights Commission, case file 2002/597-4, issued on December 11, 2002, supra note 108. 143 The representatives provided a letter of Mrs. Rosendo and her husband addressed to the Constitutional Governor as proof, as well as the statement of Mr. Ezequiel Sierra Morales before the Military Public Prosecutor on March 6, 2002 (case file on the merits, tome I, folio 216). In none of these documents was it stated that she had not been attended on February 25, 2002, for not having an appointment at the Hospital of Ayutla. Cf. Communication addressed to the Constitutional Governor of Guerrero, supra note 71, folios 343 to 345, and statement of Mr. Bernardino Sierra, supra note 72, folios 5688 a 5690.