68 application before the […] Court.” During the public hearing, Mrs. Rosendo Cantu affirmed that she currently lives in a place and in conditions far from what she prefers for security purposes. This situation of threats and harassment have resulted in the ordering of provisional measures by this Court to protect those involved in the search for justice, without the threats ceasing. The representatives concluded by requesting the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the victim’s right to access justice when “no effective measures were adopted for her and her representatives to continue in their search for justice under secure conditions,” thus violating Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 195. The State has reported to the Court that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and her next of kin have all the contemplated remedies in domestic legislation to denounce possible accusations or threats; similarly it has implemented, in favor of her and her next of kin, the necessary measures for her protection, such as the provisional measures in force in this case. Likewise, it affirmed that “the factual elements that motivated the implementation of precautionary and provisional measures do not makeup the factual framework of the present case.” 196. The Court recalls that the alleged facts of harassment and threats, while not part of the purpose of the litigation in the present contentious case, are being considered by the Court in regards to the provisional measures filed opportunely (supra para. 15). In this regard, the Court considers that there should not be obstacles in the search for justice in the present case, and thereby, the State must continue adopting all necessary measures to protect the victims and other people connected to this case, and guarantee their safety, ensuring that they can exercise their rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection without restrictions. X ARTICLE 19 (RIGHTS OF THE CHILD)260 IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 197. The Commission stated that “the rape of Mrs. [Rosendo Cantú, then a minor of age], as well as the actions of the military during the investigations of the case and the subsequent impunity of those responsible [that] have continued to date [and] they constitute a clear violation of the right of the State of Mexico to grant the special protection guaranteed in the American Convention and the other international treaties applicable,” to which it requested the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State as a consequence of a violation of Article 19 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. 198. The representatives highlighted that at the time of the rape, Mrs. Rosendo Cantu was a seventeen-year-old girl child. The State “did not provide [her] primary medical care, but rather [ten] days after she was raped” and that “she did not receive the proper medical treatment for her suffering until [six] months [after] the incident when she went to a private clinic.” This being the case, Mexico did not comply with its duty to seek the enjoyment of the highest level of health for Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, tending to her status as a girl child. Moreover, the State also did not adopt, in her favor, any other measures of special protection. As such, they requested that the Court declare the responsibility of the State for the adoption of special measures of protection given her status as a girl 260 Article 19 of the Convention stablishes that: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.