29 i) that there exists a systematic pattern of violations that is convincingly proven, and ii) that it is proven that the victim is under the detention of the State. Lastly, it highlighted that which was indicated in the report of the National Human Rights Commission, that concludes that “determinative elements did not exist to legally confirm the alleged rape by members of the military” for the facts alleged. 87. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, in regard to the codification of rape as a crime of torture, the State expressed that due to the lack of determination of the perpetrators of the facts, it cannot be “affirmed that State agents were involved.” It added that “an attempt is being made to confuse the Court by indicating that a rape, in and of itself, constitutes torture.” To be able to classify an act as torture, a detailed analysis must be made of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred, the purpose, the degree of severity, and the consequences. Since “in the present case, the constituent subject and objective elements of torture have not been provided,” the State asked that the Court declares the inexistence of violations of Articles 5 of the American Convention and 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 88. Lastly, regarding the alleged violation of the right to honor and dignity, the State stressed that, “during the investigation of the facts reported by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, no evidence was found that revealed or suggested acts of public disrespect, persecution, discrimination, false accusations or threats committed by State agents against the alleged victim or her family.” To the contrary, it noted that the alleged victim and her family “possess all the remedies established in domestic law to denounce possible accusations or threats; also, [the State] has put in place, the necessary measures for the protection of her and her family, such as the provisional measures that are in force.” Similarly, it referred to the laws in Mexico to protect the right to honor and dignity. Based on the foregoing, Mexico requested the Court to dismiss the alleged violations of the right to personal integrity, honor and dignity to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. C. Evidence of the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú i) Testimony of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú 89. First, the Court finds it evident that rape is a particular type of violence, which is generally characterized by taking place in the absence of persons other than the victim and the aggressor or aggressors. In view of the nature of this type of violence, one cannot await graphic or documentary evidence, thus the victim’s testimony becomes the fundamental proof of that which occurred. 90. The alleged victim testified about the facts on several occasions, at both the domestic level and in the proceedings before the Inter-American System. Among others, on February 26, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and Mr. Bernardino Sierra filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (supra para. 76); On March 6, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantu rendered a statement before the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, within the Preliminary Investigation 35ZM/05/2002 (infra para. 147); on March 8, 2002, she gave a statement before the Human Rights Commission of Guerrero and before the Common Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Judicial District of Allende (supra para. 77); on March 11, 2002, Mrs. Rosendo Cantu and her husband presented a request for intervention to the Constitutional Governor of Guerrero (supra para. 76), and on August 14, 2009, she carried out an expansion of her ministerial statement within the Preliminary Investigation FEIDSVI/002/2009.95 Lastly, on May 27, 2010, she rendered a statement before this Court,96 wherein she stated: 95 Cf. Appearance and ratification of the brief of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú before the Public Prosecutor of the Common Jurisdiction, adjoined ot the Special Prosecutor Special Prosecutor’s Office of Sexual Offenses and