26 […] February 16 of the year in course, in accordance with the complaint presented before the National Human Rights Commission.”85 78. On March 8, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, accompanied by Mr. Lugo Cortés and others, turned to the Allende Public Prosecutor’s Office to file a complaint for the crime of rape.86 That same day the Public Prosecutor initiated Preliminary Investigation ALLE/SC/02/62/2002 “for the crime of […] rape.”87 Initially, “they did not want to relieve the complaint […] stating that the attorney in charge of said complaints related to sexual violence, […] was out business hours […] and that she had been instructed by her superior to not take in the complaint.” Given the abovementioned, the Inspector General of the CODDEHUM “had to insist that […] it was necessary to take in the complaint,” a procedure which was finally taken on by “an agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office outside of Me’paa, [that] did not speak their language [without the assistance of an] expert translator,”88 to which Mrs. Rosendo Cantu’s husband had to assist with the translation of what she could not communicate in Spanish.89 The Inspector General, moreover, requested that “she would undergo a medical gynecological exam by a female doctor,” as it was the wish of the victim.90 The agent of the Public Prosecutor, only counting on a male forensic expert, whom was located outside of the district, requested that the Director of Expert Services of Chilpancingo Guerrero, “to assign [an] expert in gynecological matters be designated, preferably female, as requested by the victim, so as to carry out the physical examination and issue the corresponding report.”91 79. On March 12, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú went to the Ayutla Hospital accompanied by an agent of the Human Rights Commission of Guerrero, for a medical gynecological examination. The [female] doctor requested several laboratory tests.92 On March 15, 2002, the General Office for Expert Services reported to the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as a response to the request made on March 12, 2002, that they did not have personnel specialized in gynecology, rather that they only had “medical experts in legal medicine (general medicine).”93 On March 19, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was 85 Cf. Order No. 722/2002 issued by the CODDEHUM on March 7, 2002, received by the Clerk of the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdiction on March 8, 2002 (case file of annexes to the answer to the applicaiton, tome I, annex 1, folio 5767). 86 Cf. Complaint filed by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú before the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdicton, supra note 65, folio 9262. 87 Cf. Complaint filed by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú before the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdicton, supra note 65, folio 9262, and information card issued by the Public Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Allende, addressed to the President of the CODDEHUM on March 11, 2002, (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome 1, annex 1, folio 7658). 88 Sworn statement rendered by Mr. Lugo Cortés during the public hearing on May 27, 2010. 89 Sworn statement rendered by Mr. Lugo Cortés during the public hearing, supra note 88. 90 Cf. Certificate of procedures issued by the CODDEHUM on March 8, 2002 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome I, annex 1, folios 7604 and 7607), and sworn statement rendered by Mr. Lugo Cortés during the public hearing, supra note 88. 91 Order No. 235 issued by the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdiction, addressed to the Director of Investigation Services of Chilpancingo on March 8, 2002 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, folio 5069); complaint filed by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú before the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdiction, supra note 65, folios 9262 and 9271, and certificate of procedures issued by the CODDEHUM, supra note 90, folio 7607. 92 Cf. Medical note of March 12, 2002, sent by a female doctor of the Emergency Services of the General Hospital of Ayutla (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 3, folio 5118). The doctor requested the following laboratory tests: “EGO,” pregnancy test, HIV test and cultures of cervical secretion. Nevertheless, there is only proof of the urine studies, “VDRL,” and a pregnancy test. 93 Cf. Order No. PGJE/DGSP/ND/XXVIII-2/207/2002 issued by the General Office of Investigatory Services on March 15, 2002 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 7, folio 348).