38 essential aspects and values of her private life, represented an intrusion in her sexual life, and annulled her right to decide freely with whom to have intimate relations, causing her to lose complete control over this most personal and intimate decisions, and over her basic bodily functions.134 120. As indicated previously by this Court, the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has stated that the definition of discrimination against women “includes gender-based violence, that is, violence that is directed against a woman because [i] she is a woman or [ii] that affects women disproportionately.” Furthermore, it has also indicated that “[v]iolence against women is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”135 121. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for violating the rights to personal integrity and to private life and personal dignity enshrined in Articles 5(2) and 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Articles 1, 2, and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and for the non-compliance of the obligation enshrined in Article 7(a) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. 122. On the other hand, the Court finds that it is not necessary to rule on other allegations based on the same facts and decides to carry out an analysis of the eventual violations of the procedural obligations derived from the provisions mentioned in Chapter IX of this Judgment, which correspond to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. E. Personal Integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and her next of kin i) Personal Integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú 123. The Commission stated that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú reported to the authorities despite the cultural, economic and social, as well as language barriers, that she was the victim of a rape. Since she filed her complaint eight years ago, she has faced an administrative system of justice that does not work for her, an indigenous and adolescent woman. The lack of clarification of the facts and the subsequent impunity increase the levels of discrimination, subordination, and racism against the alleged victim. The State’s response offered to Mrs. Rosendo Cantú has caused emotional detriment and constitutes such humiliation and degradation in violation of her right to personal integrity and private life. Moreover, the impunity in the cases of gender-based violence has a particular level of violence, danger, fear, and restriction of their activities. In addition, [the Commission] stated that the “life of Mrs. Rosendo [Cantú] broke down as a result of the rape and the subsequent denial of justice, the treatment that […] she received[, and] the lack of measures of support and investigation that resulted in her revictimization.” Based on the abovementioned, it asked the Court to declare the State responsible for violation of Article 5(1) and 11, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, in relation with Article 1(1) of that instrument. 124. On their behalf, the representatives argued the existence of a violation of personal integrity to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú for the lack of an adequate investigation and because of the impunity that remains in the case, given that she had to go to all the instances available: communal, municipal, state, and federal, in the pursuit of justice, without those responsible being either prosecuted or punished, causing her to feel helpless, frustrated, anguished, and desperate, in light of the 134 Cf. ECHR, Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 4 December 2003, App. No. 39272/98, para. 150, e ICTY, Case of Mucic et. al. “Celebici Camp”. Judgment of November 16, 1998. Case No. IT-96-21-T, para. 492. 135 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. México, supra note 21, para. 395.