8 justice system in relation to jurisdictional competences in this case, because the [Court has already made a final ruling on this aspect].” Lastly, it asked the Court to “dismiss any violation of Articles 5(1) and 11 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention [Against Torture].” 18. In its final written arguments, the State, inter alia, reiterated its acknowledgement of international responsibility in relation with “the delay in specialized and medical care for Mrs. Rosendo Cantu, in her capacity as a women and minor of age, as well as in the delay of the investigation of the facts of the case, [which] constitute omissions attributable to the State of Mexico that imply violations to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with Articles 5(1) and 19 of the same instrument.” Mexico addressed the following terms: Absence of opportune and specialized medical care The Mexican State acknowledges before [the] Court […] the delay in the medical care and specialized medical evaluation of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu, in relation with the criminal charges filed for rape before the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the city of Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero. [T]he State acknowledges that […] it was not until March 19, 2002, that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was evaluated by a forensic physician attached to the offices of the Public Prosecutor and in the presence of an attorney of her choice. [T]he responsibility of the State of Mexico for not providing timely and specialized medical care should be restricted exclusively to the days immediately after the criminal complaint was filed.” Lack of specialized attention to Mrs. Rosendo Cantu in her capacity as a women and minor, at the time the criminal complaint was filed [T]he State of Mexico recognized that the ministerial [investigative] authorities were ignorant in providing Mrs. Rosendo Cantu specialized medical care, in her capacity as a minor […], which constituted non-compliance with the obligation to protect the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention […] and in light of other instruments […] such as […] the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Delay in the development of the investigations [T]he Mexican State acknowledges its responsibility […], for a delay in the development of the investigation of the facts complained of on March 8, 2010 by Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. Indeed, the investigations have taken eight years, without the competent authorities reaching definitive conclusions on the historical truth of the facts and determining those responsible.” Impact to the mental integrity of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu arising from the delay in the development of the investigations [T]he State of Mexico recognizes that the delay in the investigation into the facts and the lack of substantive results after eight years from the commencement of the investigations, has resulted in damage to the psychological integrity of Mrs. […] Rosendo Cantu. 19. The Commission “assesse[d] the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by Mexico […] and consider[ed] that it is a positive step towards compliance with its international obligations.” Nevertheless, it observed “that several of the arguments submitted by the State […] contradict the facts supposedly acknowledged” and “that, owing to the terms of said acknowledgement, the State has not fully assumed the legal implications in relation to the facts, or the pertinence of the reparations requested by the parties.” Consequently, it considered necessary that the Court “decide in a Judgment, the matters that remain in dispute, namely, those facts directly or indirectly refuted by the State, the assessment and legal consequences of both the facts effectively acknowledged as well as those proven by the evidence provided by the parties during the proceedings, and the reparations that are found to be pertinent.”