65 been ensured,” and to value that the ministerial [investigative] authorities have acted in conformity with the legal framework in force, and subject to subsequent legislative reforms, it determine that it is the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office who must continue with the investigation of the facts. B. Interventions with a gender perspective and respect for procedural guarantees The State indicated that Mrs. Rosendo Cantu: i) “was provided with the presence of an interpreter translator of the Secretariat of Indigenous Affairs of the government of the state of Guerrero,” ii) has had the right to be assisted by a person of confidence for the processing of the present case; iii) has had, and also as her attorneys, at all times, the opportunity to be heard by the ministerial [investigative] authorities and has had plenty of access to the case files; iv) personally received, and by means of her representatives, the explanations regarding the nature of the jurisdiction in the case, and v) her request that the Attorney General of the Republic participate in the exhaustion of the procedures was attended to. Likewise, the State affirmed that during the period when the investigation was under the jurisdiction of the civil forum, “the interdisciplinary group with a gender perspective made up of female personnel” of diverse organisms “was created,” which has continued collaborating in the investigations due to the forwarding of jurisdiction” to the military forum. This interdisciplinary group with a gender perspective “was, at all times, fully capable of moving to the locations indicated by the representatives in order to exhaust the procedures and [also maintained] the channels of communication open in order to attend to particular petitions regarding the investigations.” C. The invitation for the victim to assist in the investigations and the value of the victim´s statement The State asked the Court to examine “its willingness to continue the investigations, [considering] the repeated invitation made […] to the alleged victim to obtain her participation in the investigations.” Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was invited to testify on up to 10 occasions, and she was officially asked to propose dates to take part in procedures. Based on the foregoing, Mexico asked that the Court consider “to what extent the lack of collaboration by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and [of] her representatives has had an impact on the progress of the investigations.” D. Promotion of the investigation procedures by the State The State affirmed that it had promoted the investigation as a legal right, carrying out diverse ministerial [investigative] actions. The State’s intense evidentiary actions have involved the taking of testimony from various witnesses, the analysis of documentary evidence, the carrying out of geo-referencing studies that allowed for the location of military personnel at the time of the facts to be determined,” and “medical assessments, among other measures.” E. The recent actions taken by the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office Mexico affirmed that as of the date in which they retook the investigations in the military forum, several different procedures have been carried out to prove the corpus delicti and the probable perpetrators. Likewise, it affirmed that so as to not revictimize of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, collaboration from the interdisciplinary group with a gender perspective of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic has been requested for all the procedures that require the possible participation of the alleged victim. F. The alleged complaint formulated by Mrs. Rosendo Cantu before the municipal authorities and medical personnel The State indicated that “there is no evidence that proves that government employees of the State of Mexico had knowledge, prior to the presentation of the