68 C. Reiterated failure of the victim to assist in the investigations The State asked the Court to examine “its willingness to […] continue the investigations, [considering] the repeated invitation made […] to the alleged victim to obtain her participation in the investigations.” Mrs. Fernández Ortega was invited to testify “on up to [twenty-one] occasions and in another [three], she was officially asked to propose dates to take part in procedures.” Based on the foregoing, Mexico asked that the Court consider “to what extent the lack of collaboration by Mrs. Fernández Ortega and her representatives has had an impact on the progress of the investigations.” D. The actions of the authorities within the legal framework in force The State argued that: i) “the investigations have been conducted in strict compliance with the legal powers of each of the [P]ublic [P]rosecutor’s [O]ffices that have examined the case”; ii) Mrs. Fernández Ortega “has, at all times, been ensured the right that her claims are attended by authorities previously established by law”; iii) “a crucial factor for the transfer of the jurisdiction of the Civil Public Prosecutor’s Office to the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office and vice versa, was, precisely, the failure of Mrs. Fernández Ortega to participate in the implementation of the measures necessary to identify those responsible,” and iv) Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s failure to appear […] gave rise to a vicious circle in which the competence of [the investigating authorities] was contested, at the same time as the authorities were not provided with the necessary information to define the type of offense that was being investigated.” Accordingly, Mexico asked the Court to decide “to what extent it was valid for the victims to oppose, based on the argument of competence, the implementation of measures that were fundamental for the investigation, and for which all necessary guarantees had been ensured.” E. Promotion of the investigation procedures by the State The State affirmed that it had promoted the investigation “at all times” and specified that “it had obtained the testimony of the victim and her witnesses, and of all the soldiers from the ‘Méndez’ Operations Base; geo-referencing studies had been carried out that allowed the location of military personnel at the time of the facts to be determined, [and] medical assessments, among other measures.” Mexico asked the Court to assess “the measures taken in the course of the proceedings.” 204. First, the Court notes that some of these affirmations, such as those concerning the action of the authorities within the legal framework in force and the scrupulous respect for the procedural guarantees of Mrs. Fernández Ortega, have already been dealt with, substantially, in this section of the Judgment. The Court recalls that, irrespective of its conformity with domestic law, the intervention of the Military Criminal Public Prosecutor’s Office does not comply with the guarantees arising from the American Convention (supra paras. 175 to 177). Furthermore, regarding respect for procedural guarantees, the Court appreciates some of the efforts made by the State, including the provision of an interpreter on some of the occasions in which Mrs. Fernández Ortega was summoned to testify or participate in procedures. Notwithstanding, as the Court has indicated, the actions taken by the State have not been sufficient and, in some cases, not even opportune, to investigate the rape with due diligence, errors which were also partially acknowledged by Mexico. Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find any reason to make additional findings in this regard. 205. In addition, this Court positively assesses the establishment of an interdisciplinary group with a gender perspective composed of female personnel from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic adjoined to different institutions, in order to monitor the measures undertaken, support the victim and, insofar as possible, lessen her revictimization. The Court also appreciates that