7 by the authorities, there have been delays and absence of due diligence in the investigations; therefore, there have been different violations of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention and, consequently, also of Article 5(1) thereof, with regard to the mental integrity of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. This is […] the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility for violations of the American Convention […] that it has come here to present today […] so that the Court may order the reparations required by international law and by its jurisprudence. 17. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of international responsibility, the State asked the Court to assess and rule, “in the context of its examination of Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25 of the Convention,” on the following aspects: i) the scrupulous respect for the alleged victim’s procedural guarantees; ii) the interventions with a gender perspective carried out during the investigations; iii) the victim’s repeated failure to assist in the investigations; iv) the actions of the authorities within the legal framework in force, and v) the State’s promotion, at a procedural level, of the investigation. In addition, in the public hearing, Mexico indicated that it would not submit “any arguments concerning the use of the military justice system in relation to jurisdictional competences in this case, because the Court has already made a final ruling” in this regard. Lastly, it asked the Court to reject that, “in the present case, there have been violations of Articles 5(1), 11 and 16 of the Convention or of any other Inter-American legal instrument.” 18. In its final written arguments, the State reiterated, inter alia, its acknowledgement of international responsibility regarding “the delay in the provision of medical care for Ms. Fernández Ortega, the loss of the gynecological samples taken from the alleged victim due to lack of care in the chain of custody, and finally, the delay in the investigation into the facts of the case, [all of which] constitute omissions that can be attributed to the Mexican State and that entail violations of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with Article 5(1) of that instrument.” México stated that: Absence of timely medical care The Mexican State acknowledges before [the] Court the delay of the ministerial authorities to provide Mrs. Fernández Ortega with medical care immediately after the criminal complaint had been filed on March 24, 2002[.] This delay of two days, and the absence of specialized medical personnel in the offices of the Public Prosecutor of Ayutla de los Libres, is a circumstance that, although derived from the lack of human resources at that time […] and progressively remedied by the state of Guerrero, is fully acknowledged by the Mexican State. […] Mexico acknowledges that, at the start of the investigations, […] in 2002, the ministerial authority was the common jurisdiction and, even though it acted in accordance with the law, it was unable to provide timely medical and psychological care to Mrs. […] Fernández Ortega by specialized female personnel immediately after the criminal complaint was filed. Destruction of the gynecological evidence The Mexican State acknowledges before [the] Court the destruction of the gynecological evidence based on the lack of diligence in its handling[.] The improper technical handling of the evidence by the technicians responsible for it, added to the absence of its chain of custody, resulted in its destruction […]. This involuntary error, resulting from the lack of technical capacity and skill of the personnel of the local office of the Attorney General, as well as the implications of this fact on the subsequent development of the investigations, are circumstances fully acknowledged by the State – even since 2003, the year in which the National Human Rights Commission ruled on the loss of this evidence.