27 administered a gynecological evaluation at the installations of the Public Prosecutor in Tlapa of Comonfort, by a medical examiner connected with said common public prosecutor’s agency.94 B. Arguments of the parties 80. The Commission indicated that rape committed by members of a State’s security forces against members of the civilian population constitutes a grave violation of human rights protected in Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention. In cases involving the rape of indigenous women, the pain and humiliation is exacerbated because they belong to the indigenous population, since “they do not know the language of their attackers and of the authorities that intervene, and also because of the repudiation of their community as a result of the facts.” [The Commission] considered as proven that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú “was a victim of rape by members of the Armed Forces of the Mexican Army,” based on the following evidence: i) Mrs. Rosendo Cantú statement before the civil authorities; ii) the statement of Mrs. Estela Bernardino Sierra; iii) the results of the expert evidence which indicate that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú showed signs of physical violence; iv) the uncontroverted fact that the military was present in the area at the time of the events, and vi) reports by agencies of the United Nations that indicate having received information regarding complaints of sexual abuse against indigenous women in Guerrero. [The Commission] also underscored, “that, at the domestic level, the increased sexual abuse of women for political purposes has been documented, particularly in areas where there is intense militarization, such as in the states of Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Guerrero.” 81. The Commission added that, “in addition to affecting the physical, mental, and moral integrity of the victim, breaking her dignity, rape invades one of the most intimate spheres of an individual’s life, invading her physical and sexual space, and taking away her ability to make autonomous decisions concerning her own body.” Consequently, it asked that the Court declares the State responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) and Article 11 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Lastly, it asked the Court to declare that the abuse of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s physical, mental, and moral integrity committed by State agents constitutes torture, because the requisites for this offense were fulfilled: i) it was an act that inflicted anguish and physical and mental suffering; ii) it was committed with a purpose, and iii) by a public official. The rape “had specific gender based causes and consequences [given that] it is used […]to submit and humiliate and as a method of destroying the autonomy of the woman.” Furthermore, the Commission considered that the investigation that the State must conduct into acts that violate Article 5(1) of the Convention is also regulated by Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture. 82. The representatives argued that the rape by members of the Mexican Military of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú had clearly been proven, and that the State failed to conduct an impartial, serious, and effective investigation of the facts. In addition to the sexual abuse suffered by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú committed by two soldiers, “she was the victim of another type of sexual abuse committed by the other soldiers present at the scene of the incident […] because they remained to observe what happened.” In the present case, the rape constituted a form of violence against women, and as a consequence, an extreme form of discrimination aggravated by her condition as a an indigenous girl child in a situation of poverty, “making her a victim at an intersection of discrimination.” Based on the foregoing, they requested that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 5 and 24 of the Convention, as well as Article 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, all in relation with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 94 Cf. Order No. 130/2002 issued by medical examiner assigned to the Judicial District of Morelos on 19 March 2002 (case file of annexes to the answer to the applicaiton, tome V, annex 1, folio 9297).