63 State discriminates in this regard or in the guarantee of a conventional right, then the fact should be analyzed under Article 1(1) of the substantive right at issue. Conversely, if the alleged discrimination refers to unequal protection by the domestic law, then it should be analyzed under Article 24 thereof. 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 Convention. 184. 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.”254 Moreover, the Court has noted that “States should abstain from, directly or indirectly, creating situations of de jure or de facto discrimination.”255 185. The Court considers that it has been proven that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was not provided with a translator provided by the State when she required medical care, nor when she filed her initial complaint; neither did she receive, in her language, information regarding the subsequent steps taken regarding her complaint. In order to inform the authorities of that which affected her and to obtain information, she had to turn to her husband 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 indigenous interpreters in Guerrero. The Court positively assesses both these steps taken by Mexico. Nevertheless, the inability to file a complaint and receive information in her language at the initial stages, implied, in the present case, treatment that did not consider Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s situation of vulnerability based on her language and ethnicity, thus implying an unjustified infringement to her right to seek justice. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State did not comply with the obligation to guarantee, without discrimination, the right to access to justice, pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. * * * 186. In addition, the Commission and the representatives alleged the violation of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Among other reasons, it was stated that the authorities did not investigate the rape for the crime of torture, and that the Penal Code of the state of Guerrero does not codify said crime. The Court understands that this allegation refers, fundamentally, to the legal definition under which the rape suffered by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú 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 the Convention establishes, in general terms, the obligation to open, ex officio and immediately, an (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209; Case of Ríos et al., v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 348, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 236, para. 379. 254 Cf. Case of Yakye Axa Indgenous Community, supra note 102, para. 63; Case of Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 83; 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. 255 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 210, para. 103.