- 27 - owing to the severity of their injuries, 92 and several of the women detained reported having been subjected to sexual abuse.93 71. In this regard, the SCJN determined94 that fifty (50) women had been detained on May 3 and 4, 2006, and, of these, thirty-one (31) stated that they had been sexually assaulted in different ways by police at the time of their arrest, in the vans or vehicles in which they were taken to the buses, entering or while in the buses used for their transfer to the CEPRESO, and on entering the prison.95 72. According to the SCJN and the CNDH, the abuse reported consisted in: groping, touching, squeezing and pinching breasts, nipples, legs, pubic area, buttocks, anus and vagina, in some cases on top of clothing and, in others, establishing direct contact with the skin; introduction of fingers and tongue in the mouth; placing a baton between the legs; rubbing the penis against the body; obligation to perform “oral sex” by the introduction of the penis into the mouth; vaginal penetration with the fingers, and introduction of foreign objects into the vagina. According to the complaints, these acts were accompanied by obscene words, threats, blows and tearing at their underclothes.96 Most women stated that, using blows and threats, they were obliged to remain with their heads down, their eyes closed and, in some cases, their faces were covered with their own clothing.97 A.6 Initial statements of senior state officials on the report of sexual violence in the context of the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006 73. Based on statements made in a newspaper article published on May 12, 2006, the Governor of the state of Mexico declared that, on “the issue of the individuals supposedly raped, no accusations have been made; no one has filed a report; none of the women filed a report before the judicial authority that they had been raped.”98 Subsequently, on May 17, 2006, the newspapers published a report that the said Governor, following a meeting with the CNDH, had acknowledged that the information received could prove that some police agents had committed excesses.99 However, on the same date, information was published that the Secretary General for Governance of the state of Mexico had indicated that “the government of the state of Mexico was SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30720, 30749, 30792 and 30794), and CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 44 to 46 and 50 to 60 (evidence file 28559 to 28569 and 28565 to 2875). 92 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30713 to 30714), and CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 12 to 13 and 61 to 64 (evidence file, folios 28527 and 28528 and 28576 to 28579). 93 The SCJN based itself on “the statements and reports presented by the women before prosecutorial and judicial authorities, and before the National Human Rights Commission; what they stated directly to the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the evidence gathered in the preliminary inquiries and in the criminal proceedings instituted in relation to some of these reports.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30866). 94 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30873, and 30868 and 30869). See also, CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 12 and 13 and 61 to 64 (evidence file, folios 28527, 28528 and 28576 to 28579). 95 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30869 to 30872), and CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, pp. 61 to 67 (evidence file, folios 28576 to 28579). 96 97 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30953). Newspaper article published in “Reforma” on May 12, 2006, entitled “Niega Peña violaciones” [Peña denies violations] (evidence file, folio 516). 98 Newspaper article published in “Excelsior de Mexico” on May 17, 2006, entitled “Reconoce Peña abuso policiaco” [Peña acknowledges police abuse] (evidence file, folio 514). 99