30 one of the most intimate spheres of an individual’s life, invading her physical and sexual space, and taking away her ability to make autonomous decisions concerning her own body. In addition, rape in the presence of a member of the family has a particularly serious significance, increasing the humiliation of the victim and the trauma for both of them. Consequently, it asked that the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) and Article 11 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Lastly, it asked the Court to declare that the abuse of Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s physical, psychological, and moral integrity committed by State agents constituted torture, because the requisites for this offense were fulfilled: i) it was an act that inflicted anguish and physical and psychological suffering; ii) it was committed with a purpose, and iii) by a public official. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the investigation that the State must conduct into acts that violate Article 5(1) of the Convention is also regulated by Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture. 92. The representatives argued that the rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega had clearly been proven and that the absence of additional probative elements is solely and exclusively the responsibility of the State, which failed to conduct an effective investigation. In addition to the sexual abuse committed by the direct perpetrator, “she was the victim of another type of sexual abuse committed by the other two soldiers present at the scene of the incident, inasmuch as their presence ensured greater control by the material perpetrator, but also because they remained to observe what happened.” Rape is an exceptionally serious type of sexual abuse that “was used by the soldiers to express domination.” In addition, the rape “was an expression of extreme discrimination […] owing to her condition as an indigenous person and owing to her condition as a woman” and it sought “to humiliate and to terrorize, and to send a warning message to the community.” These factors “profoundly affected the physical and psychological integrity of [the alleged victim, and] constituted clear acts of violence against women.” Based on the foregoing, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State of Mexico is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(a) of the Convention of Belem do Para, and Articles 5 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. 93. The representatives agreed with the Commission in considering that the alleged rape suffered by Mrs. Fernández Ortega “should be deemed an act of torture,” given that the three elements were met: i) it was an intentional act; ii) that caused severe suffering, and iii) committed with an end or purpose. The fact that the alleged rape was perpetrated by soldiers particularly affected Mrs. Fernández Ortega, and she was also disturbed by the presence of her children when she was assaulted. Aside from living “with fear that what happened to her could also happen again or happen to her daughter, given the presence of the military in the area where she resides,” she blames herself for what occurred. They also noted that the irregularities and impunity in which the case remains, demonstrates the State’s noncompliance with its obligation to guarantee the victim’s right to a serious and effective investigation of the acts of violence and torture suffered. Given the aforementioned, the representatives requested the Court to declare the State of Mexico responsible for the violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Para, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture. 94. The representatives added that, “the rape of [the alleged victim] constituted one of the most aggressive intrusions to a woman’s privacy. The State agent who raped her invaded her body in the most arbitrary way, affecting her most intimate sphere,” thereby denying “her right […] to the possibility of choosing with whom and how to establish personal relationships, because he obliged her to have sexual relations with him, violently and against her will.” Moreover, it “affected both [Mrs.