8 […] The State of Mexico acknowledges the lack of skill that resulted in the loss of the evidence, as well as the consequences of this omission on the development of the investigations. Delay in the investigations [T]he Mexican State acknowledges [that] in the present case, there has been a delay in the development of the investigation. Indeed, the investigations have taken eight years, without the authorities having been able to reach definitive conclusions on the commission and probable perpetrators. [The State underscored the complexity of the case, the failure of Mrs. Fernández Ortega to appear when summoned and that, recently in 2009, the alleged victim came forward for] the procedure of the artist’s sketch and the album of photographs of the alleged authors. [Despite this, Mexico clarified that] it is in no way trying to transfer the responsibility for investigating and determining responsibilities to the alleged victim. This is of the State’s unavoidable responsibility; however, it must be contextualized by the Court in light of the facts of the case. 19. The Commission “assesse[d] the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by Mexico […] and consider[ed] that it is a positive step towards compliance [with] its international obligations.” Nevertheless, it observed “that several of the arguments submitted by the State […] contradict the facts supposedly acknowledged” and “that, owing to the terms of said acknowledgement, the State has not fully assumed the legal implications in relation to the facts, or the pertinence of the reparations requested by the parties.” Consequently, it considered necessary that the Court “decide, in a Judgment, the matters that remain in dispute; namely, the facts directly or indirectly refuted by the State, the assessment, and juridical consequences of both the facts effectively acknowledged as well as those proven by the evidence provided by the parties during the proceedings, and the reparations that are found to be pertinent.” 20. The representatives indicated that, “the acknowledgement of responsibility concerning the violation of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention does not cover, expressly, […] the submitting of the criminal investigation of the rape of the victim – and the subsequent execution of procedures – to the military jurisdiction, even though the Mexican State itself recognizes that it has recently been sentenced and convicted for the use of this jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations.” The situation is particularly serious, when it is considered that the investigation has remained in the military jurisdiction even after the Court notified its Judgment in the case of Radilla Pacheco in which it found said practice to be incompatible with the American Convention. This “reveals the contradiction in the acknowledgement of responsibility, as well as the absence of real willingness to assume the international obligations.” In addition, despite acknowledging the delay and absence of due diligence in the investigations, the State alleged that this situation “was the result of the lack of cooperation of [the alleged victim] because, according to the State’s representative, she had not come forward to testify in order to identify her attackers, even though the authorities had summoned her on numerous occasions.” Hence, the acknowledgement of international responsibility is “unclear, ambiguous and contradictory[,] does not reveal the existence of the State’s willingness to comply with its international obligations,” and is limited to “two specific omissions in the investigation, and a general acknowledgement of delay made while insisting in transferring part of the responsibility for this to the victim.” 21. Under the provisions of Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court can decide whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made