37 115. On the other hand, the Court has no evidence that disproves what Mrs. Fernandez Ortega has said. With regard to the medical examinations, it should be emphasized that the alleged victim only received medical assistance on one occasion after reporting the facts, from a general practitioner,102 who performed a physical and gynecological examination from which she determined that “there was no evidence of violence”.103 In this regard, the Court observes that the medical certificate concurs with the different statements made by Mrs. Fernández Ortega, because, in none of them, the alleged victim says that she opposed physical resistance to the attack. In this regard, the Court notes that international jurisprudence has established that the use of force cannot be considered an essential element to punish non-consensual sexual acts, and that evidence of the existence of physical resistance to such acts cannot be required; rather it is sufficient that there are coercive elements in the conduct.104 In this case, it is established that the act was committed in a situation of extreme coercion, aggravated by the fact that it occurred in a context of power subjectification by three armed soldiers. 116. More than eight years after the incident occurred, the State has not provided any evidence in the proceedings in this case that contradicts the fact that Mrs. Fernández Ortega was raped. In this regard, the Court finds that the burden falls on the State to disprove the accusations concerning its responsibility, and it cannot justify itself based, exclusively, on the uncertainty of whether the rape occurred and its authorship, when this results from errors or shortcomings when under it’s custody. To conclude the contrary would entail allowing the State to shield itself in the negligence and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation in order to ignore its responsibility for the violation of rights established in the American Convention.105 Based on the abovementioned, the Court finds it proven that Mrs. Fernández Ortega was the victim of a rape, committed by a soldier in the presence of two other soldiers that observed the perpetration of the rape, while she was in her own home. D. Juridical classification of the facts related to the rape 117. Since the Court has found it proven that Mrs. Fernández Ortega was the victim of acts of sexual violence committed by State agents, it must decide how this should be classified from a juridical point of view. 118. The Court recalls, as indicated by the Convention of Belém do Pará, that violence against women constitutes not only a violation of human rights, but is “an offense against human dignity and a manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between women and men,” that “pervades every sector of society, regardless of class, race, or ethnic group, income, culture, level of education, age or religion, and strikes at its very foundation.” 106 Fernández Ortega’s] home. I saw that she was in very bad shape. She was laying down, very sad, and she looked very injured. She told me that some [soldiers] had raped her, there in her home,” sworn statement of Mrs. Eugenio Manuel before a public notary, supra note 72, folio 1598. 102 Cf. Order No. 0176/02 issued by the director of the General Hospital de Ayutla, supra note 81, folio 400. 103 Cf. Medical note on March 25, 2002, supra note 82, folio 398. 104 Cf. ECHR, Case of M.C. v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 4 December 2003, App. No. 39272/98, para. 166, e ICTY, Case of Kunarac et al. "Foča" (Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic). Judgment of 22 February, 2001. Case No. IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, paras. 452 and 464. 105 106 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 91, para. 97. Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women. Preamble.