(OIPT), due to the threats and harassment she allegedly suffered because of her role in the defense of this and other similar cases. The precautionary measures were granted on January 14, 2005, under number MC 6-05. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 7.The petitioners contend that the State is responsible,inter alia, for the illegal detention, rape, and torture, with prejudice to Inés Fernández Ortega (“alleged victim”), an indigenous person of the Tlapanec Me`paa people, and for the lack of subsequent investigation of said facts. According to the petition, Inés Fernández Ortega, of 29 years of age, was sexually assaulted by members of the Mexican Army. 8.According to the petition, on March 22, 2002, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Inés Fernández Ortega was at home when three soldiers entered her kitchen without her permission, while another 9 remained outside in her yard.Inside also were the children of the alleged victim, all minors, who fled out of fear to the house of their grandfather Raymundo Prisciliano Jesús. The soldiers who had entered the home of the alleged victim asked her regarding the whereabouts of her husband and about the meat that she had in her yard. Since she did not answer, and remained silent because she did not speak Spanish, the soldiers became infuriated and began threatening her with their weapons, they ordered her to lie down on the floor, and raped her: “Already on the floor, the soldier held both her hands in his right hand and with his left hand lowered her underpants. The soldier then lowered his own pants down to his knees, got on top of her and began to rape her for approximately 10 minutes. The other two soldiers, acting as accomplices, observed and surrounded Inés.” Once the soldiers finished assaulting her, they left the house and headed towards the mountain, stealing the meat that was in her yard. The alleged victim remained in her kitchen until her husband, Fortunato Prisciliano Sierra, arrived. 9.The petitioners claim that on March 24, 2002, the alleged victim arrived to the Office of the Attorney General of the Civil Jurisdiction in Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero, and lodged a formal complaint against the soliders for the crimes of rape, unlawful entry, abuse of authority, and others that could arise from the investigation. A gynecological examination was practiced by Dr. Griselda Radilla López on March 25, 2002, because the alleged victim refused the examination on the previous day due to the fact that there were no female medical personnel present. 10.Thepetitioners maintain that on April 2, 2002, the office of the Attorney General sent a communication to Dr. Griselda Radilla López requesting the results of the laboratory study for the alleged victim. The director of the Hospital of Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero,responded, saying that for lack of reagents they had not been able to perform the studies, but that they still had the slides with the samples obtained. On April 10, 2002, the Office of the Attorney General ordered the director of the hospital to forward the results of the gynecological exam practiced as well as the slides for their examination by a forensic chemist. These samples and the results of the exam were sent to the Health Ministry of Chilpancingo, Guerrero. According to the petitioners, the results of the aforementioned studies were positive for the existence of sperm in the vaginal cavity but when they requested the genetic results from the forensic chemical exam, the Dirección General de Servicios Periciales de la Procuradoría de Justicia del Estado de Guerrero[Office of the Director General of Expert Services of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Guerrero] responded that to carry out said study was impossible, since the samples obtained had been destroyed by the spermatobioscopy and theacid phosphatase study. 11.According to the petitioners, on May 17, 2002, the incumbent prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General in the Civil Jurisdiction in charge of this matter, recused himself from the case. In response to this development, the alleged victim wrote to the Agente del Ministerio Público Militar[Military Prosecutor] attached to Military Zone 35, inquiring whether he had accepted to hear the case, given the recusal, and should the answer be in the affirmative, she requested that he recuse himself from hearing the case, on the grounds that the assumption of military jurisdiction would be unconstitutional, since the alleged victim was a civilian. In this regard, the petitioners state that on March 17, 2002, the alleged victim was notified that the military venue was competent to hear the case, in response to which the alleged victim lodged 2