32 raped by soldiers at the second doctor’s visit, does not discredit her statements regarding the existence of said rape. Lastly, said omission may be due to the lack of sufficient safety or trust to relate what had happened. 96. On the other hand, the Court notes that there exist other convincing elements in the body of evidence in the present case. ii) Military presence in the area on the day of the incident 97. First, the Court finds that it has been proven that there was a military presence in the area at the time of the incident. The State recognized in the public hearing and in its final written arguments “the presence of soldiers in the area” during the period in which the facts took place, as a “response to tasks to prevent and fight drug trafficking that was occurring […] in the area”103 (supra para. 86). 98. On the other hand, the case file of the present case contains cartography reports, presented in the Preliminary Investigation SC/180/2009-II-E, from which it is clear that the “Rios” Operations Base, belonging to the 41st Infantry Battalion of the Mexican Army, was located near Mexcaltepec, approximately 9 kilometers from Barranca Bejuco.104 Moreover, the Court finds that it has been proven that, according to the statements made by infantry soldiers taken on March 9 and 11, 2002, within the Preliminary Investigation 35ZM/05/2002, that on February 16, 2002, a group of soldiers left to undertake an operation to destroy the plantations of poppy [drugs] in the “stream in the valley that leads to the Caxitepec community,”105 returning to their base approximately between four and five in the afternoon,106 in other words, one hour after the incident. iii) Other persuasive elements 99. On the other hand, the Court also finds that the credibility of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s story appears to be supported by a medical psychiatric report carried out on March 11, 2002,107 which was incorporated into the conclusion of the case file 2002/597- 103 The State indicated “the military presence in the area is a fact that has been thoroughly explained in the matter sub judice. This refers to the tasks of prevention and the fight against drug trafficking carried out in the area and is convincingly proven in the military reports that exist in the case file,” (case file on the merits, tome IV, folio 1969). 104 Cf. Cartography expert report presented on May 14, 2010, in the preliminary investigation SC/180/2009/II-E, tome X of the military case file presented by the State in the public hearing (case file of documents presented during the public hearing, tome I, folio 18114), and cartography expert report presented on June 14, 2010, during the preliminary investigation SC/180/2009/II-E, tome XIV of the military case file presented by the State with the final griten arguments (case file of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, tome II, folios 21989 to 22010). 105 Cf. Statement of five soliders of the infantry and an infantry soldier rendered before the Military Public Prosecutor on March 9 and 11, 2002 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome XVI, folios 14373 to 14375, 14392 to 14395, 14477 to 14479, 14505 to 14509, 14521 to 14524, 14514 to 14516 and 14498 to 14500). See also: Cartography expert report presented on June 14, 2010, supra note 104, folios 22009 and 22010. 106 Cf. Statement of six soldiers of the infantry and one corporal of the infantry before the Military Public Prosecutor on March 9 and 11, 2002 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome XVI, folios 14380 to 14384, 14432 to 14434, 14447 to 14449, 14521 to 14524, 14536 to 14538, 14543 to 14546 and 14565 to 14567). 107 Cf. Psychiatric report in the case of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú of March 11, 2002 in case file No. 2002/597-4 of the NHRC (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome I, folios 7673, 7688, 7689, 7690, 7691, 7694 y 7696).