42 daughter, as a consequence of the rejection she suffered by her community. This forced move implied that “her daughter has not been able to grow and live in a communitarian context and [that she have] to attend a school […] where Spanish, not Tlapaneco, is spoken.” The Commission also stated that “Mrs. Rosendo Cantu’s daughter’s “personal integrity was affected as a consequence of the facts related with the complaint, as well as of the actions and omission of the authorities in the investigation of the torture complaint,” and that she has “not been able to grow and live in a communitarian context or with the peace that the victim yearns for herself and for [her daughter].” As such, the Commission requested that the Court declares that Mexico is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation with Article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of Yenys Prisciliano Rosendo. 134. The representatives indicated that as a consequence of the rape suffered by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, her daughter has been a victim of severe emotional harm that she has not been able to overcome. They maintained that she lived in circumstances where rape was used to send a message of domination and power entrenched in gender stereotypes. As a result of the facts, “she was raised in a home entrenched in gender violence, without having the opportunity to develop in a healthy and complete manner […] she [suffered] the wounds of her mother’s rape, because [Mrs. Rosendo Cantu’s] anguish and pain prevented her from adequately breast feeding and providing the appropriate attention to her[. In addition,] she experienced the aggression of her father towards her mother, which generated great feelings of insecurity.” They added that “she developed in within her mother’s frustration and desperation to seek help for the aggression she received,” and when her mother did not find it, she was obliged to move to the city of Chilpancingo, which “initiated the deep uproot from their community, their nuclear base, and the loss of their culture” causing feelings of confusion and abandonment. Similarly, she has suffered from her mother’s absence due to the impunity of the case which caused Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to dedicate part of her time to the pursuit of justice, which “has not allowed [her daughter] to have a full life or a proper development in her childhood years.” 135. The representatives also argued the violation of mental integrity of the father, mother, and siblings of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, for the rape suffered and the impunity of the case. Though they indicated that the suffering of the next of kin should be assumed, they also indicated that Mr. Victoriano Rosendo Morales and Mrs. María Cantú García, have had to live with the pain of knowing that their daughter was raped by soldiers, and they were prevented from being close to her when the rape occurred, causing them severe anguish given the uncertainty of their daughters well-being and also because she had to move to another region in search of security. In addition, they have suffered from the stigmatization of the community where they reside. They indicated that the siblings of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú have helped her seek justice and that, “even though they have not been identified as victims in the present proceeding,” the facts also impacted them, aggravated by the impunity of the case. Based on the abovementioned, they requested the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the personal integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s next of kin. 136. The State expressed regret for the consequences that a rape may cause to close relatives; nonetheless, among other arguments, it said the crime nor those responsible had not yet been proven, and therefore it cannot recognize or accept that the rights to personal integrity and honor and dignity of the next of kin of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú have been violated (supra paras. 85 and 88). As such, Mexico requested the Court to declare that a violation of the rights to personal integrity, honor, and dignity, to the detriment of the indicated next of kin, is not attributable to the State. * * *