31 whose photo they showed her; iv) she told them she did not know those people; v) the soldiers threatened to kill her and everyone in her community; vi) they hit her in the abdomen with a weapon, to which she fell to the ground and lost consciousness and subsequently they grabbed her by the hair and scratched her face, and vii) in that forum of forceful coercion, alone and surrounded by eight armed soldiers, she was raped consecutively by two soldiers who had requested information from her, while the other soldiers watched the rape take place. 93. On the other hand, from the circumstances pertaining to the situation of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu, the Court has not found elements that would impair the credibility of her statements. The alleged victim is an indigenous woman, and at the time she was a minor, who was living in an isolated mountainous area, who had to walk several hours to receive medical care for the physical harm suffered, and to file a complaint about a rape before various authorities that spoke a language she did not command, that would, in all probability, have negative repercussions in her social and cultural medium, such as the possible rejection by her community. In this sense, she pressed charges and was persistent with her claim, knowing that in the area in which she lives there is a continuing presence of soldiers, some of whom had been criminally charged with committing a serious crime. 94. Likewise, the Court noted that the facts were made known to the National Human Rights Commission by the victim. Similarly, apart from the various complaints to the corresponding authorities, the alleged victim herself and her husband informed the facts to the Constitutional Governor of Guerrero, asking for his intervention (supra para. 76). These complaints correspond to the attempts made by the alleged victim to report to the various authorities what she had suffered, to which, in accordance with the criteria of the Court, strengthens the credibility of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s statement. 95. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court notes that the first time Mrs. Rosendo Cantú appeared at a health care clinic after the event occurred, on February 18, 2002, (supra para. 75), she told the doctor that she was hit with military weapons, and when asked if she had been raped, she said no.100 On the other hand, on February 26 of the same year, she went to the Hospital of Ayutla were she also did not state that she had been raped, rather she told the doctor that “10 days [ago], a piece of wood had fallen on her abdomen, causing her extreme pain [there].”101 The Court considers that the fact that she did not indicate that she had been raped in the two initial medical consultations should be contextualized to the circumstances of the case and of the victim. First, sexual assault is a type of crime that the victim does not tend to report. This occurs specifically in indigenous communities, given the cultural as well as social particularities that the victim must face (supra para. 70), in some cases, as in the present, because of fear.102 Likewise, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, at the time the facts occurred, was a girl child who was forced to live an experience in which, in addition to being physically and sexually assaulted, she received death threats against her community by the soldiers who attacked her. Based on this, it is the criteria of the Court, that not having told the first doctor that she was raped and not having indicated that she was 100 Cf. Clinical history of the Bernardino Rosendo family, supra note 74, folio 7756; testimonial statement of the doctor that attended to Mrs. Rosendo Cantú on February 18, 2010, before the Investigation Officer of the Special Military Public Prosecutor, on May 31, 2010 (case file of annexes to the final written arguments of the State, tome I, folio 21916); testimonial statement of the doctor that attended to Mrs. Rosendo Cantú carried out before the CODDEHUM on March 22, 2002 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, folios 7731 and 7732). 101 Cf. Medical note issued by the doctor at the Ayutla General Hospital on February 26, 2002, supra note 77, folio 7624. 102 Cf. Of the psychiatric medical report of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, carried out on March 11, 2002, within the case file open with the NHRC, it states that “Mrs. [Rosendo Cantú] manifested that she is very afraid that people like the [psychiatrist] look for her to speak with her, because she thinks they are going to take her to jail, even though she cannot explain why,” (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, tome I, folio 7694).