12 as well as the supposed impunity in the case, and iii) the possible measures of necessary reparations. 29. In addition, due to economic efficiency, the testimony and expert reports rendered before a public notary in the case of Fernández Ortega et. al. v. México were incorporated into this case by the following witnesses and experts:31 1. Cuauhtémoc Ramírez Rodríguez, member of the board of the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco [Organization of the Tlapaneco Indigenous People], witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. He testified about: i) the circumstances surrounding the alleged rape of which Mrs. Fernández Ortega was presumably a victim; ii) the alleged use of rape as a form of harassment practiced by the Army against the social movements in Guerrero; iii) the supposed effects that Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s alleged rape had on the work of the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco/Me’paa [Organization of Tlapaneco/Me’phaa Indigenous People], and iv) the alleged threats and harassment against those involved in the search to obtain justice in the case. 2. María Isabel Camila Gutiérrez Moreno, editor and correspondent of the newspaper, El Sur, witness proposed by the representatives. She testified about: i) the alleged context of militarization in the indigenous areas, in particular Ayutla, state of Guerrero, and ii) the documentation, newspaper articles and investigations that, as a journalist, she had prepared in the context of the alleged rapes to indigenous women in the area of Ayutla. 3. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, anthropologist and sociologist, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. He provided an opinion on: i) the situation of the indigenous population in the state of Guerrero; ii) the conduct of the Mexican Armed Forces towards the indigenous population, and iii) the effects on the Mexican indigenous peoples of the alleged limitations to their access to justice, and the supposed impunity for human rights violations. 4. Miguel Carbonell Sánchez, lawyer, expert in Mexican constitutional law, researcher and coordinator of the Academic Extension Unit and Editorial Projects of the Institute of Legal Research of the Universidad Autónoma de México, expert witness proposed by the representatives. He provided an expert report on: i) the use of the military jurisdiction in Mexico with regard to violations of human rights and the measures that the State should adopt to avoid the recurrence of this alleged practice, and ii) the measures needed to ensure that the victims of human rights violations have access to an effective remedy to obtain legal protection when the military criminal justice system exercises jurisdiction in their case. 30. With regard to the evidence given during the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the alleged victim, the testimony of a witness, and the testimony of an expert: 1. Valentina Rosendo Cantú, alleged victim, proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. She testified regarding: i) the alleged facts which occurred on February 16, 2002; ii) the measures taken to clarify the historical truth of the facts and to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible; iii) the response and attitude of the authorities regarding the 31 Regarding these statements and expert opinions, the President determined that the Court would only take into consideration those aspects related, exclusively, with the present case. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México. Summons to a Public Hearing, supra note 6, Considering Clauses 27 and 29.