28 83. The representatives agreed with the Commission in considering that the alleged rape suffered by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú “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. Given the aforementioned, the representatives requested the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture. They also noted that the irregularities of the investigation and the impunity in which the case remains, demonstrate the non-compliance of the State regarding its obligation to guarantee the right to a serious and effective investigation against acts of torture, as such violating Articles 5(2) of the American Convention, 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Para, and 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture. 84. The representatives added that “the rape of [the alleged victim] constituted one of the most aggressive intrusions to a woman’s privacy.” The State agents who raped her invaded her body in the most arbitrary way, affecting her most intimate sphere, thereby “denying her right […] to choose with whom and how to establish personal relationships, because they obliged her to have sexual relations […] violently and against her will.” In addition, it had the effect of humiliating and expressing domination over her, her husband, and all of the indigenous men and/or members of organized groups,” thereby affecting her honor and reputation. They noted that “it is apparent that the harm to the reputation of [the alleged victim] also has discriminatory roots and is based on stereotypes of gender, because it is aimed at diminishing her value as a woman due to the aggression to which she was subject.” They added that the rape affected her selfimage and her reputation, particularly after she filed the complaint and as a direct consequence of the impunity in which the case remains, thereby violating the rights to honor and dignity. Based on the aforementioned, they asked the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 11(1) of the Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Pará to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. 85. Mexico regretted the consequences of a rape for both the victims and their close family members. However, it stated that neither “the crime nor those responsible have been proven, hence the State cannot acknowledge and accept that the rights to personal integrity and to honor and dignity […] have been violated to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú.” The determination of the existence of rape is not of the Court’s competence, given that it is a responsibility that falls on the domestic investigatory organs. In the present case, the investigating authorities did not establish that she had been raped despite the efforts made. Likewise, based on what the Commission and the petitioners have stated, the State deemed that “it cannot be implied or inferred that there were sufficient elements to corroborate the existence of a situation of real and imminent risk to the life or safety of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú at the time the facts she denounced occurred,” or that “the motive for the alleged conduct was to send a message to [her] and her community.” 86. Particularly regarding to the evidence of the reported rape, the State pointed out that: i) the statement of the alleged victim does not, in itself, constitute conclusive evidence, rather it should be assessed jointly with other evidentiary measures which are not provided in this case; ii) the statement of Mrs. Estela Bernardino Sierra lacks evidentiary weight because she was not present at the time of the facts; iii) the expert evidence that denoted signs of violence in any way, prove the relationship between military soldiers and the alleged victim; iv) the presence of soldiers in the area during the period in which the facts took place corresponds to duties related to the prevention and fight against drug trafficking, and v) the reports from multilateral organisms referenced by the Commission that indicate complaints of sexual abuse by indigenous women in the state of Guerrero, and given that they were not identified, cannot serve as persuasive evidence before the Court. There is no conclusive evidence of rape and the burden of proof falls on the party making the allegation. The reversal of the burden of proof only takes place based on two assumptions that in this case do not exist, namely: