- 126 - 360. The Court observes that, in September 2015, the State established the Mechanism to Monitor Cases of Sexual Torture against Women. Mexico reported that the mandate of this monitoring mechanism “includes the issue of a joint report with recommendations on the cases reviewed, so that the competent authorities act applying the highest international standards for women’s human rights, or receive technical assistance to investigate sexual torture,” in order to review or respond to cases of women who file complaints of sexual torture in Mexico. Although it acknowledges the actions taken as a result of the Mechanism, the Court finds it pertinent to order the State, within two years, to draw up a plan, with its respective timetable, to strengthen the Mechanism to Monitor Cases of Sexual Torture against Women, which includes the allocation of the resources required to allow it to fulfill its mandate throughout national territory, and establishes deadlines for the presentation of annual reports.460 In particular, the State must include among the Mechanism’s functions the tasks of making a diagnosis of the phenomenon of the sexual torture of women in the country and periodically drawing up proposals for public policies. E. Other measures requested 361. The Commission and the representatives asked the Court to order Mexico: (i) to adapt its legal framework to combat torture. In addition, the representatives asked that the State be ordered: (ii) to create a national forensic institution to guarantee the effective and independent documentation of torture, including the sexual torture of women; 461 (iii) to establish a center of documentation and support for women survivors of sexual torture, to be administered and managed by two of the victims in this case,462 and (iv) to establish a place to remember and learn about the violations committed in San Salvador de Atenco.463 362. The State argued that: (i) it had adopted amendments to the law concerning the prohibition of torture at both state and federal level, such as promulgation of the General Law to Prevent, Investigate and Punish Crimes of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (ii) it had taken a series of measures to “obtain justice” in cases of torture, in particular the promulgation of the PGR Standardized Protocol for the investigation of torture, 464 Cf. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 268. 460 The representatives explained that “the routine checkups made by forensic physicians are usually inadequate to treat victims of torture, as in this case, because the doctors belong to the very same institution that is accusing the torture victims of committing criminal acts and, consequently, they have a conflict of interests and may receive orders from their superior not to record the traces of torture.” The failure to perform adequate and impartial medical examinations and tests is the main factor hindering the documentation of cases of torture; this is why they requested the Court to order the creation of a national forensic institution responsible for performing the medical and psychological examinations following requests by the corresponding judicial authorities. 461 The representatives asked the Court to order the State to establish a center of documentation and support for women survivors of sexual torture. The center would be a non-governmental organization administered by two of the victims in this case, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Norma Aidé Osorio Jiménez, so that the victims may become agents of their own recovery and reparation. The measure would “have a reparative effect for the women victims in this case, and a positive impact on the life of other women who can seek legal counsel, psychological care, and other resources through the center, as well as being part of a project that allows, for the first time in Mexico, the systematization and collective development of different types of tools to deal with sexual torture in a space that inspires trust and provides active listening, where peer relationships and the common experience are reflected on.” 462 The representatives had also asked that the State acknowledge the innocence of María Patricia Romero Hernández. As described in the facts (supra para. 115) and confirmed by the representatives in their final written arguments, in August 2017, the Judiciary of the state of Mexico declared her innocence, annulling her conviction. 463 According to the State, the purpose of this protocol is “to establish action policies and procedures adapted to human rights standards for the investigation of torture to be used by the agents of the Public Prosecution Service, experts, and 464