66 criminal complaint, of the alleged rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu,” and that neither the Commission nor the representatives have effectively proven said facts. Likewise, the State affirmed that “the two instances where the Mexican authorities had knowledge, for first the first time, of the alleged rape” were with the criminal complaint filed before the Public Prosecutor of the city of Ayutla de los libres on March 8, 2002, and via a newspaper article that referenced the rape, to which the ex-officio investigation was initiated by the Military Public Prosecutor on March 5, 2002. In regards to the reference to the facts of the case that deal with the medical personnel of the state of Guerrero, the State indicated that the case files regarding the medical care received by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú on February 18 and 26, 2002, respectively, in the clinic of the Caxitepec community and in the General Hospital of Ayutla de los Libres, do not reference the information provided by the victim regarding whether a rape occurred. For this reason, the medical professionals did not treat her case as such and did not fail to comply with the obligation recognized in the domestic norm to “inform the authorities responsible […] of the allegedly criminal act, with a special emphasis in the events that may involve gender-based violence.” 188. First, the Court notes that some of these affirmations, such as those concerning the action of the authorities within the legal framework in force and the scrupulous respect for the procedural guarantees of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, have already been dealt with, substantially, in this section of the Judgment. The Court recalls that, irrespective of its conformity with domestic law, the intervention of the Military Criminal Public Prosecutor’s Office does not comply with the guarantees arising from the American Convention (supra paras. 159 to 161). Furthermore, regarding respect for procedural guarantees, the Court assesses positively some of the efforts made by the State, including the provision of an interpreter on some of the occasions in which Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was summoned to testify or participate in procedures. Nevertheless, as the Court has indicated, the actions taken by the State have not been sufficient and, in some cases, not even opportune, to investigate the rape with due diligence, and Mexico has even partially acknowledged these errors. Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find any reason to make additional findings in this regard. 189. In addition, this Court positively assesses the establishment of an interdisciplinary group with a gender perspective composed of female personnel from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic adjoined to different institutions, in order to monitor the measures undertaken, support the victim, and insofar as possible, lessen her re-victimization. The Court also appreciates that some progress was made while this group was functioning, for example, the artist’s sketch with the aid of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, a measure that could lead to the identification of the possible authors of the rape. The Court reiterates that it is fundamental to provide support to a victim of rape from the onset of the investigation in order to ensure her safety and an appropriate framework for referring to the act suffered and to facilitate her participation, as simply and as carefully as possible, in the investigation procedures. The Court observes that, even though said group with a gender perspective played a positive role, it began its work as a consequence of a commitment acquired by the State in the hearing or this case before the Inter-American Commission on October 2007; in other words, almost five years after the facts had been reported.258 190. Regarding the failure of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to attend the summons to testify, this Court understands that, when investigating criminal acts, even when the burden of the investigation should not rest on the victim, the victim’s participation may be necessary. In this regard, the Court appreciates the State’s effort to summon Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to testify on various occasions and, thus, advance the investigation. Nevertheless, the Court recalls its previous observations with regard to repeatedly summoning a victim of sexual offenses to testify, (supra paras. 178 and 180) and also 258 Cf. Answer to the application (case file on the merits, tome I, folio 471).