10 considered proved, inter alia, the following omissions and irregularities in the investigation: (a) an official of the Public Prosecution Service initially refused to accept Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s complaint, a situation which required the intervention of another public servant to make the first official comply with his legal obligation; (b) the victim, who at the time did not speak Spanish, was not provided with the assistance of an interpreter, but rather had to be assisted by an acquaintance, which, in the Court’s opinion was not appropriate to respect her cultural diversity, to ensure the quality of the content of her statement, and to protect the confidentiality of the complaint; (c) it was not guaranteed that the minimum attention and privacy due to the victim of this type of offense would be respected when the rape complaint was made; to the contrary, the complaint was made in a place with other people present, and the victim could even have been heard by people she knew; (d) there was no immediate investigation of the crime scene; rather, it took place 12 days after the complaint had been made. Furthermore, there is no record that the authorities in charge of the investigation collected or obtained the immediate evidence on other elements such as the clothes that Mrs. Fernández Ortega was wearing on the day of the events; (e) the victim was not provided with appropriate medical and psychological care, and (f) scientific evidence was not protected. To the contrary, as Mexico has admitted, the evidence collected during the victim’s medical examination was handled inadequately. Even though the Court appreciated the adoption of certain measures, it indicated that the State’s actions were insufficient and, in some cases, inappropriate to meet the requirements of due diligence in a rape investigation. 29. The Court has already determined in the admissibility requirements that a request for interpretation should seek clarity or precision in the operative paragraphs of the judgment or in considerations that have a bearing on the operative paragraphs thereof (supra para. 11). In this case, the State requested the interpretation of certain paragraphs of the judgment without specifying their possible relevance to the operative paragraphs; the only exception to this is the reference or connection that the State makes to the eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment, with the request that this paragraph be clarified. This operative paragraph clearly and precisely orders the State to conduct the investigation efficiently and within a reasonable time and, as appropriate, the criminal proceedings that it is processing in relation to the rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, in order to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and to apply, as appropriate, the punishments and other consequences established by law, all in accordance with paragraphs 228 to 230 of the judgment. 30. In this regard, the Court observes that, in its references to the eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment, Mexico correctly understands “the State’s obligation to maintain any inquiries that may be initiated against military personnel within the ordinary jurisdiction”; that “the State is ordered to continue its investigations in the ordinary jurisdiction even if it is decided to investigate military personnel and file proceedings against them,” and that the military system of justice is the inappropriate jurisdiction for the investigation of human rights violations. This reveals that the State understood the simple and clear mandate arising from the Service in Ayutla de los Libres; the inability to provide medical and psychological attention; the destruction of the gynecological evidence owing to lack of diligence in handling it; the error in the chain of custody; the delay in taking statements and that the investigations have taken eight years without the authorities having been able to reach any conclusive decisions on the offense and the probable authors. Nevertheless, it asserted that it had not violated other rights of the American Convention or any other inter-American legal instrument.