- 119 - 334. Nevertheless, as it has in other cases, 445 the Court will take into account the actions undertaken by the Mexican State as well as the measures available at the domestic level when ordering the required reparations and will include the considerations it deems pertinent on each specific measure of reparation. C. Obligation to investigate 335. The Commission asked that the State “[c]ontinue the investigations, with due diligence and within a reasonable time, in order to clarify fully the acts that violated the American Convention and other inter-American instruments, and to identify and punish the different levels of responsibility, […] including those derived from the chain of command, from the diverse forms of participation of the various law enforcement agencies at both the state and the federal level, as well as possible acts of concealment or omission.” Similarly, it stipulated that the State “should avoid any form of re-victimization” and ensure that the legal definition of the facts is in keeping with inter-American standards. 336. The representatives asked the Court to require the State to investigate, “seriously and impartially, all the human rights violations perpetrated against the eleven women, in order to identify all those responsible and impose the corresponding punishments, taking into consideration the perpetrators and the masterminds based on the chain of command of the different public institutions involved, and any other form of responsibility.” In this regard, they asked that, to ensure the effectiveness of the investigations and criminal proceedings, the State guarantee that the acts of violence would be defined as torture, for which there could be no exoneration of responsibility. They also asked that the State guarantee the protection and respectful treatment of all those involved in the proceedings, regardless of their capacity, and that it grant full access to the case file. Thus, they asked the Court to require the State “to remove all the obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain impunity in this case and to investigate, seriously and impartially, all the different forms of responsibility for all the human rights violations perpetrated against the eleven women.” 337. The State argued that it had “already arraigned all those persons who were identified as responsible” by the SCJN. However, it indicated that “there is no evidence whatsoever that a senior commander ordered the perpetration of any human rights violation” and that neither in the internal investigations nor in the proceedings before the Court had any evidence been presented in this regard. Consequently, it affirmed that it had complied with all the inter-American standards when conducting the investigations and, therefore, considered that the Court should consider this “an appropriate measure of reparation, merely allowing the criminal proceedings instituted by the State to continue until they are fully concluded.” 338. The Court has declared in this judgment, inter alia, that the State failed to comply with the obligation to investigate the acts of torture and sexual violence suffered by the eleven women victims in this case. This was due to the unjustified delay of 12 years from the time the facts occurred; the lack of diligence in processing the complaints and gathering evidence; the failure to investigate all the possible perpetrators and to follow logical lines of investigation, and the absence of a gender perspective in the investigations added to stereotyped treatment by the authorities in charge of the investigation. Although the Court appreciates the progress made by the State to date in order to clarify the facts, in light of the conclusions in this judgment, it establishes that the State shall, within a reasonable time and through officials trained in providing Cf. Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017, para. 198, and Case of the Dismissed PetroPeru Workers et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 209. 445