66 the guarantee of a conventional right, then the fact should be analyzed under Article 1(1) of the substantive right in question. If to the contrary, the alleged discrimination refers to unequal protection by the domestic law, then it should be analized under Article 24. As such, the alleged discrimination in the access to justice derived from Articles 8 and 25, should be analyzed under the general obligation to respect and guarantee the conventional rights without discrimination, recognized under Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 200. As it has been established before by the Court, and pursuant to the principles of non discrimination enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in order to guarantee access to justice to members of indigenous communities, it is indispensable that States offer effective protection that considers the particularities, social and economic characteristics, as well as the situation of special vulnerability, customary law, values, customs, and traditions.224 Moreover, the Court has noted that “States should abstain from, directly or indirectly, creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination.”225 201. The Court considers that it has been proven that Mrs. Fernández Ortega did not have a translator provided by the State in order for her to present her initial claim and the subsequent expansion of the claim; neither did she receive, in her language, information regarding the actions taken regarding her claim. In order to inform the authorities of that which affected her and to obtain information, she had to turn to someone she knew who spoke Spanish. On the other hand, the State on subsequent occasions when it called upon the victim, offered an interpreter and also informed that it was implementing a program that consisted of training indigenous interpreters in Guerrero. The Court positively assesses both these steps taken by Mexico. Nevertheless, the inability to file a claim in her language implied, in the present case, unequal treatment towards Mrs. Fernández Ortega given her language and ethnicity, thus implying an unjustified infringement to her right to seek justice. Based on the aforementioned, the Court considers that the State did not comply with the obligation to guarantee, without discrimination, access to justice in the terms of Article 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. * * * 202. In addition, the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Among other reasons, they mentioned that the authorities did not investigate the rape as a crime of torture. The Court understands that this allegation refers, fundamentally, to the legal definition under which the rape suffered by Mrs. Fernández Ortega was investigated. Article 1 of said treaty establishes the general obligation to prevent and punish torture. Article 6, in its regard, establishes the obligation to make torture a criminal offense under domestic law, establishing severe penalties for such acts. Finally, Article 8 of said Convention establishes, in general, the obligation to open, ex officio and immediately, an impartial criminal investigation into any alleged act of torture. The Court finds that, in the present case, the State did not fail to comply with Articles 1,6, and 8 of the mentioned Convention, in investigating 224 Cf. Case of Yakye Axa Indgenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 63; Case of the Saramaka People. v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 178, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 96. 225 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 194, para. 103.