9 the testimony of witnesses who were present shortly after the rape; (e) information revealed by a specific physical examination undergone by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú after the rape, and (f) the fact the fact that, more than eight years after the attack, the State has not offered any evidence that would contradict that it had occurred. The Court indicated that the State had not reported any progress in the investigation opened by the authorities that would discredit the indications pointing at the existence of the rape by military personnel and noted that, to the contrary, the State’s defense was based on ignorance as to whether the rape had taken place and its authorship, which can be attributed directly to its own authorities. To conclude otherwise would entail allowing the State to hide behind the negligence and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation to evade its responsibility for violating the right recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention. 28. Additionally, the Court found that the State was internationally responsible for violating Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Furthermore, the Court found that the State had failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women to the detriment of the victim. In addition to the facts recognized by the State, 7 the Court considered proved, inter alia, the following omissions and irregularities in the investigation: (a) the State did not undertake an immediate investigation despite being aware of the facts before the complaint was filed, it did not provide prompt medical assistance to the victim in order to collect forensic evidence and did not file a criminal complaint immediately for the alleged offense against an indigenous girl; (b) an employee of the Public Prosecution Service made it difficult for Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to file her complaint, a situation that required the intervention of another public servant so that the first one fulfilled her legal obligations; (c) the victim, who at the time did not speak Spanish, was not provided with an interpreter but had to be assisted by her husband, 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; (d) 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; (e) 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. Rosendo Cantú was wearing on the day of the events; (f) the victim was not provided with adequate medical and psychological care, and (g) the investigations into the case were archived for three years and ten months. 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. 7 The State acknowledged its international responsibility in relation to the following facts: the delay in providing medical care and assessment; the lack of specialized attention to the victim as a minor at the time of the complaint; the delay in opening the investigations which have taken eight years without the authorities having been able to determine the truth of the facts and the corresponding responsibilities, and the effects on the psychological integrity of the victim arising from the delay in undertaking the investigations.