39 indifference of the State, and aggravating the wound suffered from the rape. They argued that for Mrs. Rosendo Cantú to have filed charges implied that she crossed all the barriers that an indigenous women must suffer hoping only to seek justice, and once this was behind her she found a discriminatory and revictimizing system of justice, being that she was “subjected to intimidating and aggressive procedures that caused additional harm to her psychological integrity.” The presence of soldiers in the area after the filing of the complaint generated intense fear and caused the community to stop providing the support it had initially provided. Moreover, the impunity that exists in relation to the facts created a feeling of despair for her, and it has allowed the symptoms that stemmed from the consequences of the rape to resurface in regards to the upcoming court appearances. Similarly, the investigation of the events carried out by those responsible caused her to feel indignation, fear, and a lack of confidence. Lastly, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was a victim of discrimination and violence given that she was prevented from accessing justice in conditions of equality. As a consequence, they requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for the violation to the personal integrity of the victim for the suffering caused, as a consequence of the absolute impunity that remains of the aggression to which she was subject, considering her indigenous worldvision and the effects that the events have caused in her community. 125. Likewise, they indicated that the State also violated the right to personal integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú because of the lack of appropriate medical care in equity conditions and the health related afflictions she suffered due to the rape in the hands of military members. The State was obligated to adopt positive measures to guarantee the personal integrity of the victim, taking into account that she had been subject to sexual violence that affected her health. The State blocked her access to primary health services immediately after the rape because she was, on two separate occasions, denied immediate medical care subsequent to the facts. In addition, they were not able to rely on doctors specialized in gynecology and after the rape, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú showed severe physical pains and was faced with the risk of a possible pregnancy or infection of a sexually transmitted disease. This lack of attention evoked an additional impact on her mental integrity, in that she felt devalued and anguished. She also did not receive adequate nor quality treatment when she had access to medical services, and her condition as an indigenous girl child, victim of a rape, was not taken into account, to which she had to go to a private clinic in the city of Chilpancingo to obtain attention more specialized in gynecology, thus denying her access to adequate, accessible, and free/gratuitous health care. In addition, they argued that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú also did not receive psychological attention to assist her in attempts to counterbalance the effects of the rape and the harm her health suffered,136 given that “the medical care that [should be] provided to a women who is the victim of sexual violence and torture […] should consist […] of comprehensive attention, able to detect and mitigate the consequences of the aggression.” Based on all of the above, they requested that the Court declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights contained in Article 5, in relation with Articles 1(1), 5, 19, and 24 of the American Convention, 1, 6, and 8, of the Convention Against Torture, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 126. The State in the public hearing and in its final written arguments, recognized that the ministerial investigation had taken eight years, without the authorities having been able to arrive at the truth of the facts which occurred and to determine those responsible to date; but, this acknowledgment must be assessed in light of the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties. Likewise, it pointed out “that the delay in the provision of specialized and medical care to Mrs. Rosendo Cantu, given her condition as a women and minor of age, as well as the delay in the integration of the investigation of the facts of the case, constitute omissions attributable to the State of Mexico which imply violations to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention […], in connection with Articles 5(1) and 19 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu” and the 136 Cf. Histopathological report given by the Laboratory Cuauhtémoc of Chilpancingo on September 21, 2002 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome II, annex 52, folio 5729).