Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case of González (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico

  • Rosa M. Celorio (a1) (a2)
Copyright
References
Hide All

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights website (visited May 26, 2010) http://www.corteidh.or.cr/casos.cfm?idCaso=327.

1 González (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, Inter-Am. C.H.R. (Judgment of Nov. 16, 2009).

2 The victims were represented before the Inter-American Court by the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos A.C., the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights, the Red Ciudadana de No Violencia y por la Dignidad Humana, and the Centro para el Desarrollo Integral de la Mujer A.C.

3 The three bodies of the alleged victims were found on November 6, 2001, along with five other bodies found on November 7, 2001, on a property known as ‘‘the cotton field’’ (‘‘el campo algodonero’’) in Ciudad Juárez, México. The three victims had been reported missing on September 25, 2001, October 10, 2001, and October 29, 2001, respectively.

4 González (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 1.

5 Within this framework, the Court found several violations to the American Convention, including the obligation to respect rights under Article 1.1, the duty to adopt the legal measures necessary to implement the rights in the Convention provided for by Article 2, the right to life protected by Article 4, the right to humane treatment encompassed by Articles 5.1 and 5.2, the right to personal liberty under Article 7.1; and Articles 7(b) and 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The Court also found violations to the rights of the child of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez under Article 19 of the American Convention. In regards to the family members of the victims, the Court also found violations of their right to access to justice and to judicial protection under Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2; their right to personal integrity and humane treatment under Articles 5.1 and 5.2, in connection with Article 1.1; and Articles 7(b) and (c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The Court did not find violations arising from the state’s obligation to respect human rights under Article 1.1 of the American Convention and the right to privacy, honor and dignity embodied in Article 11 of the American Convention.

6 See, e.g., Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. (June 9, 2009), 48 I.L.M. 909 (2009); United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, U.N. Doc.E/CN.4/2006/61 (Jan. 20, 2006); United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation 19, Violence against Women, ¶ 84, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1//Rev.1 (1994); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Views under Article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Communication No. 6/ 2005, Fatma Yildirim v. Austria, July 21, 2004; Communication No. 5/2005, Sahide Goekce v. Austria, July 21, 2004; Communication No. 2/2003, A.T. v. Hungary, January 26, 2005; see also Inter-Am. C.H.R., Report No. 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil); Inter-Am. C.H.R., Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68 (2007).

7 The Court has previously established in its precedent that this obligation refers to the duty of the states to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public authority is exercised, so that they are able to ensure the free and full exercise of human rights. See, e.g., Velásquez, Rodríguez v. Honduras, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Series C No. 4, ¶ 166 (Judgment of July 29, 1988); Kawas, Fernández v. Honduras, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Series C No. 196, ¶ 137 (Reparations and Costs Judgment of Apr. 3, 2009); and Anzualdo, Castro v. Peru, , Inter-Am. C.H.R., Series C No. 202, ¶ 62 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of Sept. 22, 2009).

8 Among these, the Court refers to reports and decisions from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the National Commission on Human Rights of Mexico, United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [CEDAW] Committee, and Amnesty International among other national and international non-governmental human rights organizations and mechanisms.

9 However, the Court did hold that it does not have jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, but that these articles can be used to interpret the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention.

10 Mexico alleged that there had been two stages of investigation, the first from 2001 to 2003 and the second from 2004 to 2009. Mexico partially acknowledged responsibility for irregularities committed during the first phase of the investigation, but claimed that during the second stage, the irregularities had been ‘‘fully rectified’’. See González (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 1, ¶ 20.

1 On December 15, 2007, the President of the Court at the time, Judge Sergio García Ramírez, a Mexican national, ceded the Presidency to Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga and informed the Court that he was disqualified from hearing this case. Judge García Ramírez explained the reasons for this disqualification, which the Court accepted. On December 21, 2007, the State was advised of this decision and informed that it could appoint a judge ad hoc to take part in the hearing of the case. On February 29, 2008, following two extensions, the State appointed Verónica Martínez Solares as judge ad hoc. On September 18, 2008, the representatives of the alleged victims objected to this appointment, indicating that Ms. Martínez Solares did ‘‘not fulfill one of the requirements established in Article 52 of the [American Convention] to be a judge of the Inter-American Court.’’ On October 30, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it indicated that Ms. Martínez Solares did ‘‘not comply with the requirements to participate as judge ad hoc in the instant case.’’ In the order, the Court gave the State a certain time to appoint another judge ad hoc. On December 3, 2008, the State appointed Rosa María Álvarez González to perform this function. Additionally, for reasons of force majeure, Judge Leonardo A. Franco did not participate in the deliberation and signature of this Judgment.

2 As established in Article 72(2) of the current Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the latest amendment to which entered into force on March 24, 2009, ‘‘[c]ases pending resolution shall be processed according to the provisions of these Rules of Procedure, except for those cases in which a hearing has already been convened upon the entry into force of these Rules of Procedure; such cases shall be governed by the provisions of the previous Rules of Procedure.’’ Accordingly, the Rules of Procedure of the Court mentioned in this Judgment correspond to the instrument approved by the Court at its XLIX Regular Period of Sessions held from November 16 to 25, 2000, partially amended by the Court at its XLI Regular Period of Sessions held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.

3 On December 14, 2007, the said organizations advised the Court that they had appointed Sonia Torres Hernández as their common intervener in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (merits case file, volume V, folio 1936).

4 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico. Order of the Court of January 19, 2009, second operative paragraph.

5 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 4, fourth operative paragraph.

6 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico. Order of the President of the Court of March 18, 2009.

7 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, first operative paragraph.

8 The following persons attended the hearing: (a) for the Inter- American Commission: Florentín Meléndez, Commissioner; Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary; Juan Pablo Albán Alencastro, adviser; Rosa Celorio, adviser, and Fiorella Melzi, adviser; (b) for the alleged victims: Alfredo Limas Hernández, representative; Andrea de la Barreda Montpellier, representative; Andrea Medina Rosas, representative; Ariel E. Dulitzky, adviser; David Peña Rodríguez, representative; Emilio Ginés Santidrián, adviser; Héctor Faúndez Ledesma, adviser; Héctor Pérez Rivera, adviser; Ivonne I. Mendoza Salazar, representative; María del Carmen Herrera García, adviser; María Edith López Hernández, adviser; Karla Micheel Salas Ramírez, representative, and Sonia Josefina Torres Hernández, common intervener, and (c) for the State: Alejandro Negrín Muñoz, Agent, Director General of Human Rights and Democracy of the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Mario Leal Campos, adviser to the Ambassador of Mexico to Chile; Patricia González Rodríguez, Deputy Agent, Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua; Mario Alberto Prado Rodríguez, adviser, Coordinator of Advisory Services for the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Secretariat of Government; Mauricio Elpidio Montes de Oca Durán, adviser, Deputy Director General for Investigation and Attention to Human Rights Cases of the Secretariat of Government; Víctor Manuel Uribe Aviña, adviser, Assistant Legal Consultant to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Arturo Licón Baeza, adviser, Assistant Prosecutor for Human Rights and Services to Victims of Crime of the state of Chihuahua; Pablo Navarrete Gutiérrez, adviser, Legal Affairs Coordinator of the National Women’s Institute; Carlos Garduño Salinas, adviser, Director for Human Rights of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; Fernando Tiscareño Luján, adviser, Adviser to the Secretary General of Government of the state of Chihuahua; Rodolfo Leyva Martínez, adviser, public official of the Office of the Assistant Prosecutor for Human Rights and Services to Victims of Crime of the state of Chihuahua; José Ignacio Martín del Campo Covarrubias, adviser, Director of the International Human Rights Litigation Area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ximena Mariscal de Alba, adviser, Deputy Director of the International Human Rights Litigation Area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; David Ricardo Uribe González, adviser, Department Head of the International Human Rights Litigation Area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Luis Manuel Jardón Piña, adviser, Head of the Litigation Department of the Legal Services Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Carlos Giménez Zamudio, adviser, Head of the Domestic Policy, Press and Human Rights Area of the Mexican Embassy in Chile.

9 Brief presented by Simona Cusack, Rebecca J. Cook, Viviana Krsticevic and Vanessa Coria on December 4, 2008.

10 Brief presented by Eric Sottas and Philip Grant on April 16, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the Consejo General of the Abogacía Española and the Fundación del Consejo General of the Abogacía General adhered to the brief.

11 Brief presented by Miguel Ángel Antemate Mendoza, Selene Cruz Alcalá, Rafael Caballero Hernández, Carlos Alejandro Martiarena Leonar and Alma Elena Rueda Rodríguez on April 23, 2009.

12 Brief presented by Raymundo Gil Rendón and several of his students on April 24, 2007.

13 Brief presented by Viviana Waisman and Paloma Soria Montañez on April 27, 2008.

14 Brief also prepared by: Cáritas Diocesana of Ciudad, Juárez, Pastoral Obrera, Programa Compañeros, Ciudadanos por una mejor Administración Pública, Casa Amiga Centro de Crisis, and by Clara Eugenia Rojas Blanco, Elizabeth Loera and Diana Itzel Gonzáles; and presented by Imelda Marrufo Nava on May 15, 2009 .

15 Brief presented by César Rodríguez Garavito, A. on June 1, 2009 .

16 Brief presented by José, Antonio Ibáñez Aguirre on July 10, 2009 .

17 Brief presented by Clive Baldwin on June 8, 2009.

18 Brief supported by: Amnesty International, Thomas Antkowiak, Tamar Birckhead, Mary Boyce, Break the Circle, Arturo Carrillo, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Center for Justice and Accountability, the Human Rights Center of the Universidad Diego Portales, Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic, Cornell Law School International Human Rights Clinic, Bridget J. Crawford, the Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic of the University of Cincinnati, Margaret Drew, Martin Geer, the Human Rights and Genocide Clinic, Benjamín N. Cardozo School of Law, Human Rights Advocates, Deena Hurwitz, the Immigration Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law, the Immigration Justice Clinic, IMPACT Personal Safety, the International Human Rights Clinic at Willamette University College of Law, the International Mental Disability Law Reform Project of New York Law School, the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic at Georgetown Law School, Latinojustice PRLDEF, the Legal Services Clinic at Western New England College School of Law, the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School, Bert B. Lockwood, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School, Beth Lyon, Thomas M. McDonnell, the National Association of Women Lawyers, the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, the National Organization for Women, Noah Novogrodsky, Jamie O’Connell, Sarah Paoletti, Jo M. Pasqualucci, Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Darren Rosenblum, Susan Deller Ross, Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice, Gwynne Skinner, Kathleen Staudt, Jeffrey Stempel, Maureen A. Sweeney, Jonathan Todres, the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights, the U.S. Human Rights Network, Penny M. Venetis, Deborah Weissman, Richard J. Wilson, the Women’s Law Project, the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and the World Organization for Human Rights USA. It was presented by David S. Ettinger and Mary-Christine Sungaila on July 17, 2009.

19 Brief presented by Leah Hoctor on July 17, 2009

20 Brief presented by Widney Brown on July 13, 2009.

21 Brief presented on September 21, 2009, by Clara Sandoval and students of the Human Rights Center and School of Law of Essex University, Carla Ferstman and Marta Valiñas of Redress; Javier Ciurlizza and Catalina Díaz of the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), Ruth Rubio Marín of the European University Institute, and Mariclaire Acosta, Ximena Andión Ibañez and Gail Aguilar Castañón.

22 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 67.

23 Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. And, Article 55 del Rules of Procedure establishes that: The Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case.

24 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 21.

25 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No.171. para. 24, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 24, para. 25.

26 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 25, para. 24, and Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 24, para. 25.

27 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 38, and Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 1999. Series C No. 57, para. 21.

28 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34.

29 Cf. ‘‘Other Treaties’’ Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 1, paras. 43 to 48; Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-3/83 of September 8, 1983. SeriesA No. 3, paras. 47 to 50; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, paras. 20 to 24 and, inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 30.

30 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 110; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 24, para. 85, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 61.

31 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Street Children’’ (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 247 and 248.

32 Cf. Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No.G 101/81, paras. 12(b), 16, 20, 21 and 22, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 174.

33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 45.

34 Preamble to the Convention of Belém do Pará.

35 Cf. ‘‘Other Treaties’’ Subject to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 29, para. 29.

36 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 41, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 27, para. 42.

37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 30.

38 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Initial Preliminary Text and Last Version of the Draft Text for the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Item 1), OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.9/94, April 13, 1994, p. 16.

39 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, Preliminary Report of the Second Session of the Inter-governmental Meeting of Experts to Consider the Draft Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, OEA/Ser.L/II.7.5 CIM/Recovi/doc.36/93 corr.2, April 14, 1994. See, in particular, Attachment I, Working Group II, Proposed reforms presented by the delegation of Mexico to Articles 13 to 16 of chapter IV of the draft Convention, WG-II/doc. 5/93 October 26, 1993, pp. 12 and 13.

40 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, Attachment I, Working Group II, Proposed reforms presented by the delegation of Mexico to Articles 13 to 16 of chapter IV of the draft Convention, supra note 39, p. 13.

41 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, supra note 38, p. 16.

42 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Comments received from Governments on the Draft Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Item 1), OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.4/94, April 4, 1994.

43 Cf. Inter-American Commission of Women, VI Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates, Summary of Proceedings of the Second Plenary Session, OEA/Ser.L/II.3.6 CIM/doc.24/94, rev.1, June 6, 1994. The following countries voted in favor: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay. The only country that voted against was Brazil. Mexico, the United States of America, Canada and Jamaica abstained from voting.

44 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 280, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 296.

45 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 44, para. 279, and Case of Perozo v. Venezuela, supra note 22, paras. 295 and 296.

46 Cf. Case of the ‘‘White Van’’ (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (‘‘Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller’’) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 22, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 55.

47 Cf. Case of the ‘‘White Van’’ (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 46, para. 76; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 26, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 55.

48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 140; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 44, para. 81, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 94.

49 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 54, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 47, para. 45.

50 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 4, forty-sixth considering paragraph.

51 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 6, seventy-fifth considering paragraph.

52 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 6, forty-seventh considering paragraph.

53 Cf. Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, supra note 6, thirty-sixth considering paragraph.

54 Article 4(1) of the Convention stipulates: Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

55 Article 5 of the Convention establishes: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.2.No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. [. . .]

56 Article 7 of the Convention stipulates:1.Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.2.No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.3.No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. [. . .]

57 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. [. . .]

58 Article 19 of the Convention establishes: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State.

59 Article 25(1) of the Convention indicates that:

Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.

60 Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes:

The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.

61 Article 2 of the Convention states:

Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.

62 Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará stipulates:

The States Parties condemn all forms of violence against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: [. . .](b)apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women; (c)include in their domestic legislation penal, civil, administrative and any other type of provisions that may be needed to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to adopt appropriate administrative measures where necessary; [. . .]

63 Cf. Radiografía Socioeconómica del Municipio de Juárez prepared by the Municipal Research and Planning Institute, 2002 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXV, attachment 2, folios 8488 to 8490, 8493, 8495 and 8510).

64 Cf. Radiografía Socioeconómica del Municipio de Juárez 2002, supra note 63, folio 8492; IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico: The Right to be Free from Violence and Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V//II.117, Doc. 44, March 7, 2003 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 1, folio 1742); United Nations, Report on Mexico produced by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol of the Convention, and reply from the Government of Mexico, CEDAW/C/2005/OP.8/MEXICO, 27 January 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 3b, folio 1921); United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk, Integration of the human rights of women and a gender perspective: violence against women, Mission to Mexico, E/CN.4/2006/61/Add.4, January 13, 2006 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 3c, folio 2011), and Amnesty International, Mexico: Intolerable killings: 10 years of Abductions and Murders or Women in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua, AMR 41/027/2003 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 6, folio 2267).

65 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1921; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2011; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2268, and Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos A.C., Compendio de recomendaciones sobre el feminicidio en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, 2007 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XX, attachment 11(1), folio 6564).

66 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial de la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos sobre los Casos de Homicidios y Desapariciones de Mujeres en el Municipio de Juárez, Chihuahua, 2003 [Special Report of the National Human Rights Commission on the Cases of Homicides and Disappearances of Women in the Municipality of Juarez, Chihuahua, 2003] (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 5, folio 2168); Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2011, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2267.

67 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1742; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1921 and 1922; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168, and Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez [Commission for the Prevention and Eradication of Violence against Women in Ciudad Juarez], Primer Informe de Gestión, November 2003-April 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXV, attachment 7, folio 8666).

68 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2011.

69 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8666, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 195.

70 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2011.

71 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1742; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1921 to 1922; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168, and Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos A.C., Compendio de recomendaciones, supra note 65, folio 6564.

72 Cf. CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998 issued on May 15, 1998 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 4, folios 2113 to 2164).

73 Cf. United Nations, Report of the mission of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, E/CN.4/2000/3, Add.3, November 25, 1999 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 3d, folios 2025 to 2058).

74 Cf. United Nations, Report of the mission of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, E/ CN.4/2002/72/Add.1, January 24, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 3e, folios 2060 to 2111).

75 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1732 to 1779.

76 Cf. United Nations, Report of the Committee of International Experts of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, on the mission to Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico, November 2003 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 3a, folios 1861 to 1913).

77 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1921.

78 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folios 2011 to 2021.

79 Cf. European Parliament resolution on the murder of women (femicide) in Mexico and in Central America and the role of the European Union in fighting the phenomenon, adopted on October 11, 2007, 2007/2025/(INI) (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIII, attachment 3.1, folios 4718 to 4727).

80 Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2256 to 2305.

81 Cf. Observatorio Ciudadano para Monitorear la Impartición de Justicia en los casos de Feminicidio en Ciudad Juárez y Chihuahua, Informe Final. Evaluación y Monitoreo sobre el trabajo de la Fiscalía Especial para la Atención de Delitos Relacionados con los Homicidios de Mujeres en el Municipio de Juárez, Chihuahua, de la Procuraduría General de la República, November 2006 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XX, attachment 11.2, folios 6629 to 6759).

82 Cf. Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos A.C., Compendio de recomendaciones, supra note 65, folios 6561 to 6626, and Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Feminicidio en Chihuahua. Asignaturas Pendientes, 2007 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XX, attachment 11.3, folios 6761 to 6864).

83 According to the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, although the phenomenon of violence in Ciudad Juárez affects both men and women, ‘‘it is important to note that, in the case of men, it is well known that the causes of the killings relate to drug-trafficking, vendettas and street fighting, among other factors’’ and ‘‘[i]n the case of the killings of women [. . .] there are no apparent causes’’ (Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Compendio de recomendaciones, supra note 65, folio 6565). Similarly, the Ciudad Juárez Commission indicated that, even though the context of violence in Ciudad Juárez affected men, women and girls, ‘‘an underlying pattern of gender violence can be observed, although more local studies and statistics on the issue are needed’’ (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8668).

84 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1744 and 1761.

85 The report of the IACHR Rapporteur explains that, according to a presentation made on March 17, 2000, by Cheryl Howard, Georgina Martínez and Zulma Y. Méndez entitled ‘‘Women, Violence and Politics,’’ an analysis based on the death certificates and other data resulted in the conclusion that, over the period 1990-1993, 249 men were murdered while, between 1994 and 1997, 942 men were murdered, which signifies a 300% increase. According to the same study, between 1990 and 1993, 20 women were murdered and between 1994 and 1997, the number rose to 143, which signifies an increase of 600% (Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1761).

86 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1743 and 1761; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2007, and the Comisión Especial para Conocer y Dar Seguimiento a las Investigaciones Relacionadas con los Feminicidios en la República Mexicana y a la Procuración de Justicia Vinculada [Special Commission to Examine and Follow-up on the Investigations into the Femicides in the Mexican Republic and the Related Delivery of Justice], of the Chamber of Representatives of the Congress of the Union, Violencia feminicida en 10 entidades de la Republic Mexicana, published in April 2006 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXI, attachment 11.4, folio 6930).

87 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Informe Final, issued in January 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XL, attachment 59, folio 14607). It should be noted that there is a difference in the figures for the number of women murdered for each 100,000 inhabitants mentioned by the Commission and by the Special Prosecutor’s Office in their respective reports. The figure provided by the Commission is 7.9 (the report does not indicate the period used to calculate this figure) and by the Special Prosecutor’s Office it is 2.4, for the period from 1991 to 2004 (Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1761 and Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, folio 14607).

88 Reports provided to the Court as evidence, as well as evidence forwarded by the State, reveal that there is no consensus regarding the statistics for the murders of women in Ciudad Juárez. In this regard, CEDAW indicated: ‘‘[t]here are no clear and convincing records of the number of women who have been murdered and abducted. There is no agreement between the figures put forward by the various government agencies and those cited by non-governmental organizations.’’ (Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1934). Furthermore, according to the National Human Rights Commission, there are ‘‘disparities and contradictions in the data, numbers and information provided by the competent state and federal authorities to this National Commission, as well as to various international agencies and non-governmental human rights defenders in relation to the women victims of murder or disappearance in the municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua; of itself, this denotes negligence in the performance of the administration of justice’’ (CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2247). The Special Prosecutor’s Office emphasized that ‘‘[o]ne of the most difficult aspects to determine, and the one that has generated the greatest controversy concerning events in the municipality of Juárez [. . .], relates to the number of cases of murder and disappearances that have occurred there over the last 13 years with similar characteristics or patterns of conduct. There have been innumerable speculations in this regard, and numbers and facts that bear no relationship to the reality have been used haphazardly.’’ According to the Special Prosecutor’s Office, ‘‘the figures and the evidence reveal that, in recent years, a perception has been generated that bears no relationship to the reality, creating a vicious circle of facts, impunity and speculation that has affected the population of Ciudad Juárez in particular’’ (Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the _Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14540 and 14607). The Ciudad Juárez Commission indicated that ‘‘it is not certain how many murders and disappearances have occurred in Ciudad Juárez; there is no credible figure for the family groups and government institutions.’’ (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8677).

89 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1743; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1921; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2166 and 2167, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2256 and 2262.

90 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14646.

91 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14691 and Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Feminicidio en Chihuahua, supra note 82, folios 6761 to 6864.

92 Final report of the Observatorio Ciudadano, supra note 81, folio 6647.

93 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2253.

94 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1746; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2274.

95 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14543, 14661, 14584 and 14587, and CNDH, Segundo Informe de Evaluación Integral, supra note 72, folio 4667.

96 Final report of the Observatorio Ciudadano, supra note 81, folios 6650 and 6659.

97 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2238.

98 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1924 and 1926; Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2052; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2256 and 2271, and Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14605.

99 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1764; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2256 and 2271, and testimony given before notary public by the expert witness Jusidman Rapoport on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XIII, folio 3806).

100 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1924 and 1926; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2012, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2257 and 2271.

101 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1924 and 1926; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2012; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2257; Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14605; statement made before notary public by expert witness Monárrez Fragoso on November 20, 2008 (merits case file, volume XIII, folio 3911), and Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, May 2005-September 2006, citing the Second Progress Report entitled ‘‘El feminicidio: formas de ejercer la violencia contra las mujeres’’ (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXVII, attachment 12, folio 9016).

102 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1924 and 1926; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2012, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2257 and 2271.

103 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2053.

104 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14525.

105 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1924 and 1927, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2271.

106 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra 64, folio 1744.

107 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1927, and final report of the Observatorio Ciudadano, supra note 81, folio 6640.

108 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1744; Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2052; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2271; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2154, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1927.

109 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14608. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Ciudad Juárez Commission indicated that, ‘‘[a]lthough it is true that it has been difficult to prove that the murders of women in Ciudad Juárez are related to serial killers, the [Special Prosecutor’s Office] should have analyzed the criminal phenomenon constituted by paradigmatic cases; those in which there may be evidence of what the [Special Prosecutor’s Office] calls ‘‘murders of women with similar characteristics and/or patterns of conduct.’’ Similarly, it complained that the Special Prosecutor’s Office ‘‘has not yet approached its analysis from a gender perspective, despite international recommendations’’ (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9073).

110 Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folios 8996 and 8997.

111 According to the 2005 CEDAW report, the Chihuahua Women’s Institute referred to 90 cases, the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the Delegate of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in Ciudad Juárez mentioned 93 cases and the NGOs counted 98 (Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924).

112 These allegations concur with the conclusions of the first progress report of the Ciudad Juárez Commission, which indicated that, during the 1970s and 1980s, the maquila industries were characterized by employing women almost exclusively, in a context of male unemployment; this ‘‘produced a cultural shock within the families’’ and when ‘‘the men could not find work, it was the women who supported the household’’ (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8663. See also, Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922; statement made before notary public by expert witness Pineda Jaimes on April 15, 2009, merits case file, volume VIII, folio 2825, and testimony of expert witness Jusidman Rapoport, supra note 99, folio 3778).

113 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14549.

114 In its reply to the CEDAW Report, the State explained that the context of violence against women that many of the murders were part of, together with public opinion’s strongly held views about the possible causes, ‘‘makes it extremely difficult to classify them on the basis of motive’’; however, it was possible to classify them ‘‘in light of the data available concerning the perpetrators, witnesses and circumstances under which the murders took place’’ (Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1957).

115 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1957.

116 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1960.

117 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1735; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folios 2001 to 2002, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64 folios 2259 and 2269.

118 Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2269.

119 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1766 (citing the letter of the Secretary of Government of Chihuahua to the Special Rapporteur of February 11, 2002).

120 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1937 and 1949.

121 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folios 2001 and 2002.

122 Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 9074.

123 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1748 and 1750 (citing the letter of the Secretary of Government of Chihuahua to the Special Rapporteur of February 11, 2002).

124 Article 21 of the General Law on the Access of Women to a Life Free of Violence, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on February 1, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 109, folio 16126).

125 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8661 and the Commission of the Chamber of Representatives, Violencia Feminicida en 10 entidades de la Republic Mexicana, supra note 86, folio 6885.

126 Cf. testimony of expert witness Monárrez Fragoso, supra note 101, folio 3906.

127 Cf. testimony of expert witness Pineda Jaimes, supra note 112, folio 2813.

128 Cf. statement made before notary public by expert witness Lagarde y de los Ríos on April 20, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folio 3386).

129 Cf. testimony of expert witness Jusidman Rapoport, supra note 99, folio 3806.

130 Cf. Commission of the Chamber of Representatives, Violencia Feminicida en 10 entidades de la Republic Mexicana, supra note 86, folio 6889, and Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8662.

131 Cf. Final report of Observatorio Ciudadano, supra note 81, folio 6714.

132 Cf. Centro para el Desarrollo Integral de la Mujer and AC/ Red Ciudadana de No violencia y Dignidad Humana. Las Víctimas de Feminicidio en Ciudad Juárez. Informe del Estado de la Procuración de Justicia y el Acceso a las Garantías Judiciales sobre feminicidios y mujeres desaparecidas en Juárez, 1993–2007. Report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, May 2007 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IV, appendix 5 Vol. III, folios 544 and 555).

133 Cf. Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos A.C, Compendio de recomendaciones, supra note 65, folio 6654.

134 Cf. Brief presented by the Global Justice and Human Rights Program of the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia (merits case file, volume XV, folio 4416); brief presented by the World Organization against Torture and TRIAL–Track Impunity (merits case file, volume VI, folio 2197), and brief presented by the Red Mesa de Mujeres de Ciudad Juárez (merits case file, volume XV, folio 4290).

135 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1750 (citing the letter of the Secretary of Government of Chihuahua to the Special Rapporteur of February 11, 2002).

136 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1767; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folios 2118 to 2129 and 2138; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924, and Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1898.

137 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1749; Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1869; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2167, and statement made before notary public by expert witness Castresana Fernández on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume VIII, folio 2904).

138 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14573.

139 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1746, Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2274.

140 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1767; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2140; Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14579 and 14610; Press conference offered by the Assistant Attorney General for Human Rights, Services to Victims and to the Community and the Special Prosecutor for Crimes related to Acts of Violence against Women, in the Jurists Auditorium, Reforma 211, Mexico, D.F., February 16, 2006, annex 4 of the final report of Observatorio Ciudadano, supra note 81, folio 6714.

141 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1750; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2140; Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1929, Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14579, and statement made before notary public by witness Doretti on April 17, 2009 (merits case file, volume VI, folio 2326 and 2327).

142 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1750; Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folios 1898 and 1899; testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2332.

143 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folios 2371 and 2372.

144 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1897; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2154; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2227, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2279.

145 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100.

146 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14575 and 14609.

147 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1957.

148 Cf. Response of the Mexican Government to the CEDAW report under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, January 27, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXV, attachment 6, folios 8612 to 8653).

149 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1734 and 1742; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2259 and 2269; testimony of expert witness Pineda Jaimes, supra note 112, folio 2832, and testimony of expert witness Jusidman, supra note 99, folio 3808.

150 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100.

151 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2053.

152 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1765; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928; Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2052; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2139, and testimony of expert witness Monárrez Fragoso, supra note 101, folios 3938 and 3940.

153 CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2155.

154 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1734.

155 Report of the United Nations Commission of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1869.

156 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1734; Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2012, and CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2232.

157 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14617 to 14651.

158 Cf. files of 203 cases of murders of women committed in Ciudad Juárez, in which a final judgment has been handed down, September 2003 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, attachment 6, folios 17347 to 17400).

159 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14612.

160 It should be noted that there are inconsistencies between the global figures, because according to the final report of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, up until 2003 there had been 328 cases of murders of women in Ciudad Juárez (Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14646).

161 Cf. Attorney General’s Office of the state of Chihuahua, Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Investigation of Murders of Women, Ciudad Juárez, 2003. Attachments to the fourth monthly report of the State to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of February 17, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 75, folio 15446).

162 In general, regarding the cases that the State refers to as ‘‘concluded’’, CEDAW indicated in its 2005 report that it was concerned about the fact that cases are considered, and recorded, as having been concluded or solved when they are brought before the courts, ‘‘even though the accused have neither been arrested nor punished’’ (Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1950). Furthermore, and also in general, in its 2005 report, the CNDH indicated that it had ‘‘obtained sufficient information to disprove the affirmations of the PGJE [Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua], that cases had been solved without any legal grounds to support these assertions’’ (CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2234).

163 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1964. In this regard, it should be noted that, in its report, CEDAW indicated: ‘‘The Government assures us that judgments have been rendered in only 4 of the 90 cases considered to involve sexual violence, whereas nearly all of the civil society sources state that those 4 cases have not been resolved either, and that some of the accused may not be guilty. After eight years, only one prisoner has been convicted and punished, and that case is still in the appeal phase.’’ (Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1934).

164 Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 8997 (citing the second progress report, entitled ‘‘El feminicidio: formas de ejercer la violencia contra las mujeres).

165 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1931.

166 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2012.

167 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1766.

168 Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2053.

169 Cf. appearance of Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Special Prosecutor’s Office to Investigate the Disappearances and Murders of Women, on October 1, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 17, folio 2621) and appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Special Prosecutor’s Office to Investigate the Disappearances and Murders of Women, on October 5, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 19, folio 2625).

170 Cf. Missing Person Report No. 225/2001, processed on September 25, 2001, with regard to Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 11, folio 2609), and appearance of Benita Monárrez Salgado before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons on September 25, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachments 12 and 14, folio 2611).

171 Information taken from the report issued by two Judicial Police agents attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute the Murders of Women of Chihuahua on September 28, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXV, attachment 50, docket II, volume IV, folio 12974).

172 Cf. Statement made on October 24, 2001, by Juan Antonio Martínez Jacobo before the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 23, folio 2637) and Missing Person Report No. 234/ 2001 processed on October 12, 2001, with regard to Claudia Ivette González (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 8, folio 2603).

173 Cf. Missing Person Report No. 234/2001, supra note 172; appearance of Mayela Banda González before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons on October 12, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50 docket II, volume I, folio 11102), and testimony given by Mrs. González at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on April 28, 2009.

174 Appearance of Irma Monreal Jaime before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons on October 30, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 29, folio 2653).

175 Cf. appearance of Irma Monreal Jaime, supra note 174; Missing Person Report No. 241/2001, processed on October 30, 2001, with regard to Esmeralda Herrera Monreal (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 13, folio 2613), and testimony given by Mrs. Monreal at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on April 28, 2009.

176 Cf. appearance of Mayela Banda Gonzáles, supra note 173, folio 2605.

177 Cf. Missing Person Report No. 234/2001, supra note 172.

178 Cf. testimony given, on April 5, 2006, by Irma Monreal Jaime before the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders of Women (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXVIII, attachment 38, folio 9555), and appearance of Irma Monreal Jaime, supra note 174.

179 Cf. Missing Person Report No. 241/2001, supra note 175.

180 Missing Person Report No. 225/2001, supra note 170, folio 2609; Missing Person Report No. 234/2001, supra note 172, and Missing Person Report No. 241/2001, supra note 175.

181 Cf. Official letter No. 549/2001 issued on September 25, 2001, by the Coordinator of the Program to provide services to Victims of Crime and Disappeared Persons in relation to the disappearance of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXVIII, attachments 20 and 90, folio 9420); official letter No. 589/ 2001 issued on October 12, 2001, by the Coordinator of the Program to provide services to Victims of Crime in relation to the disappearance of Claudia Ivette González (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 10, folio 2607), and official letter No. 634/01 issued on October 30, 2001, by the Program to provide services to Victims of Crime in relation to the disappearance of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXVIII, attachments 32 and 88, folio 9575).

182 Official letters Nos. 549/2001, 589/01 and 634/01, supra note 181.

183 Cf. testimonies given by Mrs. Monárrez, Mrs. González and Mrs. Monreal at the public hearing held before the Inter- American Court on April 28, 2009.

184 Cf. voluntary appearance of Irma Monreal Jaime before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Joint Agency commissioned by the Federation to Investigate the Murders of Women, on October 20, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10578); document presented to the IACHR by Josefina González and the Red Ciudadana de No Violencia and Dignidad Humana on September 3, 2006 (case file of attachments to the application, volume II, appendix 5, vol. I, folio 131), and document presented by Irma Monreal Jaime and the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos to the IACHR on July 29, 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IV, appendix 5, vol. III, folio 734).

185 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2192 to 2220.

186 Cf. Statement made before notary public by expert witness de la Peña Martínez on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folios 3350), and statement made before notary public by expert witness Azaola Garrido on April 20, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folios 3369).

187 Statement made before notary public by witness Delgadillo Pérez on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folios 3481 and 3482).

188 Testimony of expert witness Jusidman Rapoport, supra note 99, folio 3824.

189 Cf. EAAF, Anthropological and forensic genetics appraisal, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, June 12, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10326).

190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 135; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 95, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 127.

191 In the case of Laura Berenice Ramos, there is the testimony of her father, Daniel Ramos Canales, of September 28, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 15, folio 2615). In the case of Claudia Ivette González, a friend called Juana González Flores came forward voluntarily to give testimony on October 12, 2001, before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Special Prosecutor’s Office to Investigate the Disappearances and Murders of Women, on the day the disappearance was reported (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11104 and 11105). In the case of Esmeralda Herrera, there is the testimony of Eduardo Chávez, who came foward voluntarily on November 2, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10315 and 10316).

192 Cf. Poster entitled ‘‘Help us find this person,’’ issued by the Juárez Unit of the Special Group for Services to the Family of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachments 30, 31 and 32, folios 2655, 2657, and 2659).

193 Document presented by Irma Monreal Jaime and the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos to the IACHR on July 29, 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IV, appendix 5, vol. III, folio 756); voluntary appearance of Irma Monreal Jaime of October 20, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10578); file card dated October 15, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10571 and 10572); testimony of Irma Monreal Jaime before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute Murders of Women, given on April 5, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10286 and 10287), and testimony of Benigno Herrrera Monreal before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute Murders of Women, given on April 5, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10294).

194 Testimony given by Mrs. González, supra note 183. The sister of Claudia Ivette González gave similar testimony mentioning steps taken by the family (Cf. appearance of Mayela Banda González, supra note 173).

195 Testimony given by Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183; appearance of Ivonne Ramos Monárrez, supra note 169, folio 2620; voluntary appearance of Benita Monárrez Salgado before an official of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Assistant Attorney for Regional Control, Criminal Proceedings and Amparo on October 20, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III, volume II, folio 13593), and appearance of Ivonne Ramos Monárrez before an official of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Assistant Attorney for Regional Control, Criminal Proceedings and Amparo on October 20, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III, volume II, folio 13600).

196 Testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3523.

197 Cf. appearance of Benita Monárrez Salgado, supra note 170, folio 2611.

198 Cf. appearance of Daniel Ramos Canales before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on September 28, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 15, folio 2615), and appearance of Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez, supra note 169, folios 2619 to 2621.

199 Cf. appearance of Ana Catalina Solís Gaytán before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 1, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 16, folio 2617); appearance of Diana América Corral Hernández before a deputy official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 1, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 18, folio 2623), and appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo, supra note 169 (folios 2625 to 2626).

200 Cf. appearance of Ana Catalina Solís Gaytán, supra note 199.

201 Cf. appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo, supra note 169, folio 2626.

202 Cf. appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo, supra note 169, folio 2626.

203 Cf. appearance of Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez, supra note 169, folios 2620 and 2621, and appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo, supra note 169, folio 2626.

204 Cf. appearance of Diana América Corral Hernández, supra note 199.

205 Cf. file card of October 15, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III, volume II, folio 13580).

206 Cf. document presented by Benita Monárrez Salgado and the Red Ciudadana de No Violencia and Dignidad Humana to the IACHR, supra note 184, folio 294.

207 Cf. appearance of Rocío Itxel Núñez Acevedo, supra note 169, folios 2625 and 2626.

208 Cf. appearance of Mayela Banda González, supra note 173.

209 Cf. appearance of Juana González Flores, supra note 191; appearance of Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11106 to 11108); appearance of Aide Navarrete García before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and disappearances of Persons, on October 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11109 to 11111); appearance of Armando Velazco Fernández before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 19, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11112 and 11113), and appearance of Verónica Hernández Estrada before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 19, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11114 to 11115).

210 Cf. appearance of Efrén Pérez Maese before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 24, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folio 11116).

211 Cf. appearance of Víctor Hugo Hernández Bonilla before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 25, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11119 to 11120).

212 Cf. appearance of Juan Antonio Martínez Jacobo before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 24, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folios 11117 to 11118) and appearance of Jesús Moisés Cuellar Juárez before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on October 25, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folio 11121).

213 Cf. appearance of Mayela Banda González, supra note 173; appearance of Juana González Flores, supra note 191; appearance of Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana, supra note 209, folios 11106 and 11107; appearance of Aide Navarrete García, supra note 209, folio 11110, and appearance of Armando Velazco Fernández, supra note 209, folio 11113.

214 Cf. appearance of Juana González Flores, supra note 191, folio 11105.

215 Cf. appearance of Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana, supra note 209, folio 11107.

216 Cf. Newspaper Article entitled ‘‘Impunes crímenes de las ocho mujeres’’ [Murders of the eight women go unpunished] published in the daily newspaper ‘‘Norte’’ on November 6, 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VIII, attachment 7, folio 2329); report issued by two Judicial Police agents, supra note 171; testimony given by Irma Josefina González before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, on February 12, 2009 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLVIII, attachment 4, folios 17193 and 17194), and testimony given by Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Prosecutor’s Office to Respond to Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, on February 25, 2009 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLVIII, attachment 4, folio 17197).

217 Similarly, see ECHR, Case of Pukhigova v. Russia, Judgment of 2 July 2009, paras. 75 and 84.

218 Testimony given by Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana, supra note 209.

219 Cf. appearance of Eduardo Chávez Marín before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on November 2, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10315 to 10316).

220 However, the Court observes that there is a testimony by a police agent indicating that other statements were taken, including some at the maquila where Claudia Ivette worked and the school where Esmeralda Ramos studied (Cf. testimony given by José Miramontes Caro on April 14, 2009, before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLVIII, attachment 4, folios 17221 and 17222).

221 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2018.

222 Cf. Testimony given by Mrs. Monreal, supra note 183. See also the statement by Irma Monreal Jaime in the petition filed before the Inter-American Commission on March 6, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application volume XXVII, attachment 42, folio 9802). Similarly, the victim’s brother testified that the authorities said they could not do anything ‘‘because she had obviously gone off with her boyfriend’’ (Cf. testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrido, supra note 186, folio 3369).

223 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monreal Jaime, supra note 183.

224 Cf. communication presented by Josefina González before the Inter-American Commission in September 2006 (case file of attachments to the application, volume II, appendix 5 volume I, folio 141).

225 Cf. testimony of Mrs. González, supra note 183.

226 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183.

227 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183, and file card issued by the Head of the Federal Investigation Agency reporting on the interview with Benita Monárrez Salgado on October 15, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III volume II, folio 13579).

228 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481.

229 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folios 3494 and 3495.

230 According to an Amnesty International report, in March 2003, of the total 69 disappearances that were active, only one case in Ciudad Juárez was considered by the authorities to be ‘‘high risk.’’ This was the case of an 18-year-old girl disappeared since May 10, 2002 (Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2274). It should be noted that, according to the CNDH, an official letter of June 18, 2003, reveals ‘‘that the cases of [five persons] were considered ‘high risk’’’ (CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2204).

231 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2174.

232 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1950.

233 Missing Person Report No. 225/2001, supra note 170, folio 2609; Missing Person Report No. 234/2001, supra note 172, folio 2603, and Missing Person Report No. 241/2001, supra note 175, folio 2613.

234 Cf. Official record of the removal of the remains of unidentified bodies Nos. 188/2001, 189/2001 and 190/2001 issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua on November 6, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 35, 36 and 37, folios 2672 to 2675, 2677 to 2679 and 2681 to 2683).

235 Cf. attestation of evidence issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Preliminary Investigation file No. 27913/01/1501 of November 8, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4778 to 4783).

236 In the order, the Court indicated, inter alia:

40. That [ . . . the Commission issued admissibility reports with regard to [ . . . only three victims and their next of kin. [. . .]

41. That, following the adoption of the admissibility report, during the merits stage, the representatives asked the Commission to rule on possible violations of the rights of the other presumed victims found in the cotton field. In particular, they asked the Commission to process these cases motu proprio and joinder them to the cases that were already underway, or that, additionally, it consider the ANAD as a petitioner for the new presumed victims.

[. . .]

44. That [. . .] the Commission never referred to the requests of the petitioners [. . .]. The Court observes that the representatives were only made aware of the Commission’s position three years later, when the Court requested information on this issue.

[. . .]

46. That, since, in the case of the new presumed victims alleged by the representatives, all the necessary procedural stages had not been conducted to allow the Commission to include them in its report on merits, the Court must reject the request to include María de los Á ngeles Acosta Ramírez, Guadalupe Luna of the Rosa, Mayra Juliana Reyes Solís, Verónica Martínez Hernández, Bárbara Aracely Martínez Ramos, María Rocina Galicia Meraz, Merlín Elizabeth Rodríguez Sáenz and the woman who is still unidentified female 195/01, as well as Víctor Javier García Ramírez, Gustavo González Meza and EdgarÁ lvarez Cruz, as presumed victims in the instant case. [. . .]

237 Cf. Records of the removal of a body, supra note 234, folios 2672 to 2683.

238 Cf. affidavit (fe ministerial) concerning the place and the bodies made by an official of the Chihuahua Public Prosecutor’s Office and two assisting witnesses on November 6, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 33, folios 2661 to 2667).

239 Cf. autopsy reports of unidentified bodies Nos. 188/2001, 189/2001 and 190/2001 issued by a Forensic Expert of the Technical Office of Expert Services of the Chihuahua Attorney General’s Office, on November 9, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachments 40, 41 and 42, folios 2696, 2697, 2699, 2700, 2702 and 2703).

240 The affidavit on the place and bodies indicates the following: ‘‘striped white, pink and red blouse, torn in the upper right part’’ (Cf. affidavit on the place and bodies, supra note 238, folio 2662). While the autopsy report refers to a ‘‘torn red, white and orange blouse with part of the right side missing’’ (Cf. autopsy report on unidentified body No. 188/2001, supra note 239, folio 2696).

241 It should be noted that the record of the removal of the body establishes the time of death at 3 to 4 weeks (Cf. record of the removal of an unidentified body No. 190/2001, supra note 234, folio 2681). On the other hand, the autopsy report establishes a time of death of 4 to 6 weeks. (Cf. autopsy report of unidentified body 190/2001, supra note 239, folio 2703).

242 Cf. criminology report issued by experts in the areas of onsite criminology, forensic photography and forensic excavation from the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua dated February 2, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 62, folios 2914 to 2920).

243 Cf. statement made by the Director of the Expert Services and Forensic Medicine Department of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, contained in a decision signed by the Seventh Criminal Judge of the Morelos Judicial District on July 9, 2003 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 74, folios 2982 to 2983).

244 Cf. judgment of July 14, 2005 delivered by the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 83, folios 3422 to 3500).

245 Cf. second autopsy of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal performed by Luis Alberto Bosio on November 18, 2005 (merits case file, volume VII, folio 2481).

246 Cf. appearance of Benita Monárrez Salgado before an official of the Chihuahua Public Prosecutor’s Office on July 24, 2006 (merits case file, volume VII, folio 2718).

247 Cf. forensic DNA and anthropological report concerning Esmeralda Herrera Monreal issued by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team on June 12, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10341).

248 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 276.

249 Article 1 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.

250 Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 295.

251 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Five Pensioners’’ v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 127, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 191.

252 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Mapiripán Massacre’’ v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 63, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 59.

253 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Mapiripán Massacre’’ v. Colombia, supra note 252, para. 56; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 33, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 47, para. 135.

254 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, paras. 72 and 73.

255 Cf. The Word ‘‘Laws’’ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 21.

256 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Mapiripán Massacre’’ v. Colombia, supra note , paras. 111 and 113; Case of Perozo v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 298, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62.

257 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 137, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62

258 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 174, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 62

259 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 173; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 182, and Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 62.

260 Cf. testimony given before notary public by Mrs. Monárrez Salgado on July 23, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket 2, volume I, folio 13082).

261 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 81; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 154; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111.

262 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Street Children’’ (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 31, para. 144; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 237, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 75.

263 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 120; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 237, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 262, para. 75.

264 Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 345; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 262, para. 79, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 89.

265 Cf. Case of Chaparro Á lvarez and Lapo I´ñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 53.

266 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 276.

267 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 166; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 149, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 63.

268 Cf. CEDAW, General recommendation 19: Violence against women, 11° session, 1992, U.N. Doc. HRI-GEN-1-Rev.1 at 84 (1994), para. 9.

269 Cf. United Nations, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. General Assembly resolution 48/104 of 20 December 1993. A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994, Article 4.c.

270 United Nations, Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 4 to 15, 1995, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action approved at the 16° plenary session held on September 15, 1995. A/CONF.177/20/Rev.1, para. 124 b.

271 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64.

272 IACHR, Case 12,051, Report No. 54/01, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, Annual Report, 2000, OEA/Ser.L/ V.II.111 Doc.20 rev. (2000).

273 IACHR, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, supra note 272, para. 56. CEDAW has ruled similarly. Thus, in the case of A.T. v. Hungary (2005), it determined that the State had not complied with the obligations established in the Convention to prevent the violence against the victim and to protect her. In particular, it stated that it was ‘‘particularly concerned that no specific legislation has been enacted to combat domestic violence and sexual harassment and that no protection or exclusion orders or shelters exist for the immediate protection of women victims of domestic violence’’ (Cf. CEDAW, Communication No. 2/2003, Ms. A. T. v. Hungary, 32° session, January 26, 2005 para. 9.3). Similarly, in the case of Yildirim v. Austria, in which the victim was murdered by her husband, CEDAW found that the State had failed in its obligation of due diligence because it had not detained him (Cf. CEDAW, Communication No. 6/2005, Fatma Yildirim v. Austria, 39° session, 23 July to 10 August 2007, para. 12.1.4 and 12.1.5).

274 Cf. United Nations, Violence against women in the family: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/85, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/68, 10 March 1999, para. 25.

275 United Nations, General Assembly, In-depth study on all forms of violence against women. Report of the Secretary- General, Sixty-first session, A/61/122/Add.1, July 6, 2006, para. 352.

276 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2265.

277 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1963. According to the CNDH, this Prosecutor’s Office was created because ‘‘the investigations into all the murders that occurred in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, from 1993 to 1996, were being conducted by the Homicide Unit of the Judicial Police of that state’’ and according to Amnesty International, ‘‘it was a request that the local organizations had been making since 1996, owing to the inability of the [Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua] to respond to the situation’’ (Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2278).

278 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1752.

279 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1963.

280 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14617 to 14651.

281 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1937 and CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2235.

282 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2235 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2278.

283 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1752.

284 Cf. Law on the State Public Security System issued by the H. State Congress, published in the State’s Official Gazette No. 51 of June 27, 1998, and amended in 2002, 2004 and 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 72, folios 15326 to 15364).

285 Cf. Article 35, fraction V of the Organic Law of the Executive Branch of the state of Chihuahua, published in Official Gazette No. 79 of October 1, 1986, latest amendment POE 2005.01(1)9/No. 6.

286 Cf. Article 35, fraction VI of the Organic Law of the Executive Branch of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 285.

287 Cf. Law on the National Women’s Institute (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 86, folios 16010 to 16019).

288 Article 4 of the Law on the National Women’s Institute, supra note 287, folio 16010. 289 The State mentioned the Zero Tolerance Program and Operation Crucero in their pleadings, but did not explain the achievements or results of these programs (Cf. brief in answer to the application, merits case file, volume III, folio 1031). The Court observes that, in the said document of the Attorney General’s Office, supra para. 270, the State mentioned that the crimes decreased as a result of these programs, but did not provide further explanations or additional evidence in this regard.

289 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64.

290 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1820 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2285.

291 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1749; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924, and CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2155.

292 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1938 and 1924.

293 CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2155.

294 Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2053.

295 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2224 and 2226.

296 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 123; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 261, para. 155, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 78. See also ECHR, Case of Kilic¸ v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 62 and 63, and ECHR, Case of Osman v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, paras. 115 and 116.

297 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 142; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 115, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 298.

298 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 344.

299 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 176, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 76.

300 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 123, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 113.

301 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 179, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 141.

302 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 143; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 297, para. 144, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 101.

303 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 261, para. 145, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 78.

304 Cf. ECHR, Ergi v. Turkey, Judgment of 28.07(1)998, Reports of Judgments, n. 81, paras. 85-86, and ECHR, Akkoc¸ v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 October 2000, paras. 77 to 99; ECHR, Kilic¸ v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 78 to 83.

305 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 112; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 97, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 23.

306 Cf. ECHR, Case of Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, Judgment 26 July 2007, para. 98.

307 Cf. Contract for professional services signed by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua and the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team on May 1, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 136, folios 16581 to 16586).

308 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 383, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121.

309 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra note 305, para. 127; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 106, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 102.

310 Cf. United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991).

311 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310.

312 Cf. testimonial statement given before notary public by Mr. Máynez Grijalva on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XIII, folio 3845).

313 Cf. report issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez on November 6, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folio 4742) and decision issued by the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua on July 14, 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 83, folio 3431).

314 Cf. affidavit concerning the place and the bodies, supra note 248, folio 2667.

315 Cf. official record of the removal of a body, supra note 234.

316 Cf. list of evidence prepared by the Head of the Technical Office of Expert Services and Forensic Medicine on November 13, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 44, folios 2708, 2720 and 2721), and affidavit concerning the place and the bodies, supra note 238, folio 2667.

317 Cf. official record of the removal of a body, supra note 234, folios 2710, 2712, 2714, 2716 and 2718.

318 During these searches by the next of kin, they found the voter credentials and the employment credentials of Claudia Ivette of González (Cf. affidavit concerning the place and objects issued on February 24, 2002, by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women, case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 63, folios 2923 and 2924); preliminary affidavit concerning the place and objects issued on February 25, 2002, by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women, case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 64, folios 2927 and 2928), and testimony given by Mrs. Monárrez Salgado before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Internal Affairs Controller for the Northern Zone on July 23, 2006 (case file of attachments to the application volume IX, attachment 84, folios 3504 to 3507).

319 Cf. testimony given by an expert witness in chemistry attached to the Technical Office of Expert Services and Forensic Medicine of Ciudad Juárez before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murder of Women in Ciudad Juárez on March 15, 2008 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVIII, attachment 50, folios 14072 to 14074).

320 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310.

321 Cf. statement made before notary public by expert witness Snow on April 17, 2009 (merits case file, volume XIV, folio 4225).

322 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580, and testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2326.

323 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1900, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1929.

324 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1929.

325 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2326.

326 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310.

327 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310.

328 Cf. testimony given by expert witness Bosio before notary public on April 15, 2009 (merits case file, volume VI, folio 2279).

329 Cf. testimony of expert witness Bosio, supra note 328, folio 2378.

330 Cf. autopsy certificates, supra note 239.

331 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580.

332 Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2301.

333 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580, and testimony of expert witness Bosio, supra note 328, folios 2281, 2284 and 2286.

334 Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14580.

335 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2331.

336 Testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folio 2883.

337 Testimony of witness Máynez Grijalva, supra note 312, folio 3846.

338 Cf. E.A.A.F., Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10330.

339 Cf. E.A.A.F., Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10331.

340 Cf. Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal Executions, supra note 310.

341 Cf. Official letter No. 0504/00 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 10, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 39, folio 2687).

342 Cf. Official letter No. 0507/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 8, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 39, folio 2688); official letter 504/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 8, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 39, folio 2689); official letter No. 513/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 9, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 39, folio 2690), and official letter No. 514/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 9, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 39, folio 2691).

343 Cf. EAAF, Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10331.

344 Cf. appearance of Mayela Banda González, supra note 173, folios 2796 and 2797.

345 Cf. Official letter No. 530/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 15, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 51 and 53, folio 2799).

346 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Adrián Herrera Monreal on November 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 54, folio 2882), and testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Antonio Herrera Rodríguez (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 55, folio 2884).

347 Cf. official letter No. 534/01 issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on November 16, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachments 56 and 57, folio 2886).

348 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2347.

349 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Benita Monárrez Salgado on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 67, folio 2934).

350 Cf. testimonial statement on the identification of a body made by Pablo Monárrez Salgado on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 68, folio 2937).

351 Cf. official letter No. 248/02 MP, authorization to return the body of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, issued by the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women on March 22, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 69 and 70, folio 2939).

352 Cf. forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Claudia Ivette González on November 21, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 58, folios 2888 to 2893); forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Esmeralda Herrera on November 21, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 59, folios 2895 to 2900), and forensic identification report issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services in relation to Laura Berenice Ramos on January 8, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 72, folios 2955 to 2962).

353 Cf. testimony of expert witness Snow, supra note 321, folio 4224, and testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2345.

354 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2347.

355 Cf. EAAF, Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10341.

356 Cf. EAAF, Dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folios 10358, 10367 and 10368.

357 Cf. testimony of Irma Monreal Jaime given before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the group of the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murder of Women on March 15, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, Docket, I volume I, folio 10230).

358 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339.

359 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra nota 141, folios 2352 and 2353.

360 Cf. appraisal made by an expert in forensic genetics on October 8, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume XI, folio 2908).

361 Cf. forensic genetics appraisal, supra note 360, folio 2908.

362 Cf. forensic genetics appraisal, supra note 360, folio 2908.

363 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339.

364 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10339.

365 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10341.

366 Cf. EAAF, dictamen en antropología and genética forense, supra note 189, folio 10338.

367 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1901.

368 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1930 and testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2352.

369 Cf. testimony of expert witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2334.

370 Cf. testimony of Víctor Javier García Uribe before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua on November 9, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4839 to 4842) and testimony of Gustavo González Meza before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua on November 9, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4854 to 4857).

371 Cf. preliminary statement of Gustavo González Meza before the Third Criminal Judge of the Bravos District, Chihuahua, on November 12, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4887 to 4894) and preliminary statement of Víctor Javier García Uribe before the Third Criminal Judge of the Bravos District, Chihuahua, on November 12, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4896 to 4904).

372 La CNDH indicated that ‘‘according to the state of Chihuahua authorities, he was killed because he was mistaken for a criminal and, according to some reports, the lawyer who is currently defending García Uribe has also been threatened’’ (CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2230; IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1749, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2294).

373 The Commission and the representatives indicated that, in January 2006, Mr. García’s lawyer was murdered in circumstances that remain to be clarified. However, the only evidence in the case file is the testimony of a journalist, which the Court rejected based on its form (supra para. 106).

374 Cf. decision of discontinuance due to the death of the accused Gustavo González Meza (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XVIII, attachment 3, folios 6164 to 6166).

375 Cf. Third Criminal Judge of the Bravos Judicial District, judgment handed down in criminal case 74/2004, ‘‘Guadalupe Luna de la Rosa et al.’’ on October 13, 2004 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XVIII, folios 6213 to 6398).

376 Cf. Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua, Judgment of July 14, 2005 (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 83, folios 3422 to 3500).

377 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2229 and 2230, and Second Inspector General of the National Human Rights Commission, official letter No. V2/004191 of February 27, 2004 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 78, folios 2994 and 2995).

378 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2379.

379 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2228 and 2229.

380 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folios 1878, 1879, 1883 and 1891.

381 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9011.

382 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100.

383 Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2273.

384 Case of the ‘‘Street Children’’ (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 31, para. 230.

385 Cf. decision of March 9, 2006, of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Northern Zone, Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez in preliminary inquiry file 27913/01-I (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, folio 10184) and decision of the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua of July 14, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume X, attachment 83, folios 3422 to 3500).

386 Testimony of witness Caballero Rodríguez at the public hearing held on April 28, 2009.

387 Cf. report of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, ‘‘Homicidios de Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua’’ (case file of attachments to the application, volume II, appendix 5, folios 184 to 216), and Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua, Tercer Informe, January 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume X, attachment 81, folio 3362).

388 Cf. Third report of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, supra note 387, folio 3363.

389 Testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folio 2902.

390 Cf. Article 73 fraction XXI of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, Volume XXVIII, Attachment 43, folio 9852).

391 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3513, and testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folio 2902.

392 Cf. attestations of August 16, 2007, by which the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders in Ciudad Juárez traced different measures (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III, volume II, folios 10569, 10570, 13577, 13578, 13641 and 13642).

393 Even though the Special Prosecutor’s Office indicated that it had not been proved that ‘‘federal laws have been violated, so that it would justify the transfer mechanism’’ in any of the 19 investigations, the office indicated that attachment B of the report ‘‘describes the hypotheses for the investigations, and also the measures that were proposed for each of the 19 preliminary [murder] investigations’’ of the 22 referred to in the said report. Although this indicates an exchange of information, the Court observes that there is no evidence that similar measures were recommended in the cases of the young women, Herrera, González and Ramos (third report of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, supra note 387, folio 3363).

394 Testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3513.

395 Testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folios 2902 and 2903.

396 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1980 and 1981.

397 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, paras. 156, 158 and 164.

398 Cf. decision of March 9, 2006, of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Northern Zone, supra note 385, folio 10184.

399 Testimony of witness Caballero Rodríguez, supra note 386.

400 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2235.

401 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481.

402 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481.

403 Cf.Case of the ‘‘Mapiripán Massacre’’ v. Colombia, supra note 252, para. 215.

404 Cf.Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 397, para. 207.

405 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14881 to 14892.

406 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, Informe de Funcionarios Sancionados, issued on April 27, 2009 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIX, attachment 5, folios 17319 to 17346).

407 Cf. denunciation of facts submitted by the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos A.C. on June 5, 2007 (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 92, folios 3546 to 3588).

408 Testimony given by witness Caballero Rodríguez, supra note 386.

409 Cf. decision issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute Murders of Women, of May 3, 2007 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8480).

410 Cf. decision issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office on January 30, 2008 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXV, attachment 50, docket II, volume IV, folio 12982).

411 In the case of Claudia Ivette González, copies were requested on April 1, 2002, May 2, 2007, January 29 and November 4, 2008, and February 12, 2009, and copies were issued on April 1, 2002, and February 12 and March 11, 2009 (Cf. case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folio 11122; volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8478 and 8479; volume XLVIII, attachment 4b, folio 17313; volume XLVIII, folio 17193, and volume XLVIII, folio 17208). In the case of Laura Berenice Ramos copies were requested on February 26, 2002, March 6 and May 3, 2007, and January 29, 2008, and copies were issued on February 26, 2002, and June 1, 2007 (Cf. case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13069; volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8481; volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13129; case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8477; case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13070, and attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13130.) In the case of Esmeralda Herrera copies were issued on March 11, 2002 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, folio 13171).

412 Cf. CEDAW, General recommendation 19: Violence against women, supra note 268, paras. 1 and 6.

413 ECHR, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 June 2009, paras. 180, 191 and 200.

414 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 303.

415 IACHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 68, January 20, 2007 (case file of attachments to the application, volume VII, attachment 2, folio 1822).

416 United Nations, Report of the independent expert for the United Nations study of violence against children, Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/231, A/61/299, 29 August 2006, paras. 25, 29 and 30.

417 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paras. 53, 54 and 60; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 164, and Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 133.

418 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra note 417, paras. 56, 57 and 60, and Case of the Jean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra note 417, para. 134.

419 Cf. CEDAW, General recommendation 24: Women and health, twentieth session, A/54/38/Rev.1, 1999, para. 6, and Case of the Jean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, supra note 417, para. 134.

420 Cf. Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, Article 4 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 43, volume XXVIII, folio 9816) and Law for the Protection of the Rights of Girls, Boys and Adolescents, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on May 29, 2000, Articles 2 to 5 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 103, volume XLIII, folio 16049).

421 Such as the creation of the National Council for Children and Adolescents (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 104, volume XLIII, folios 16065 to 16068); the National System for the Integral Development of the Family (merits case file, volume III, folio 1082); the National Action Plan to Prevent, Deal With and Eliminate the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (merits case file, volume III, folio 1082), and the Campaign to Prevent Child Abuse (merits case file, volume III, folio 1085).

422 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra note 309, para. 77, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 105. Nevertheless, in its judgment in the Valle Jaramillo case, the Court established that suffering could not be presumed as regards the next of kin who did not belong to the nucleus of ‘‘direct family members,’’ but that, in such cases, the Court must examine whether there were, inter alia, ties of affection, suffering, or whether they had taken part in the search for truth. In the instant case, the State acquiesced as regards the alleged suffering of the next of kin, therefore the Tribunal will not apply such analysis in the present case (Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. supra note 49, para. 119).

423 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez at the public hearing, supra note 183. See also testimony of Benita Monárrez Salgado before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua on July 24, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXIX, attachment 46, folio 10046).

424 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183.

425 Cf. testimony of Mrs. González, supra note 183.

426 Cf. statement made before notary public by expert witness Lira Kornfeld on April 21, 2009 (merits case file, volume XI, folio 3340).

427 Cf. testimony of expert witness Lira Kornfeld, supra note 426, folio 3340.

428 Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2282. Likewise, IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1745.

429 Cf. testimony of expert witness Lira Kornfeld, supra note 426, folio 3339.

430 Cf. testimony given by Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183.

431 Cf. testimony of Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua on July 9, 2007 (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 91, folio 3544). In relation to this complaint, see also the request for a copy of the complaint of harassment made on August 25, 2006, by Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez before the Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Murders of Women on May 1, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, folio 13128).

432 Cf. United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, written decision of the Immigration Court, April 13, 2009 (merits case file, volume XIII, folio 4015).

433 Cf. written decision of the Immigration Court, supra note 432, folio 4023.

434 Cf. written decision of the Immigration Court, supra note 432, folio 4025.

435 Cf. written decision of the Immigration Court, supra note 432, folios 4018 to 4020.

436 Cf. written decision of the Immigration Court, supra note 432, folios 4028 and 4029.

437 Cf. testimony of expert witness de la Peña Martínez, supra note 186, folio 3352.

438 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1745 and 1770, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924.

439 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1748 and 1769.

440 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1946.

441 Testimony of Irma Monreal Jaime before the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders of Women on April 5, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50 docket I volume I, folio 10290).

442 Cf. testimony given by Mrs. Monreal, supra note 183.

443 Cf. testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrido, supra note 186, folio 3366.

444 Article 11 establishes:

  1. 1.

    1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized.

  2. 2.

    2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.

  3. 3.

    3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

445 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 57, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 117.

446 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 170, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 94.

447 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 170, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 94.

448 Cf.Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations and Costs, supra note 446, paras. 25 and 26; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 173, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 95.

449 Cf. Case of the ‘‘White Van’’ (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 82; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (‘‘Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller’’) v. Peru, supra note 46, para. 112, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 97.

450 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 164; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 399, and Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, supra note 261, para. 195.

451 Cf.Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 297, para. 146, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 102.

452 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 397, para. 195, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 49, para. 102.

453 Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 157; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 199, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 239.

454 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 195; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 239, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 157.

455 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 202, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 200.

456 Cf. Penal Code of the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on December 27, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXIX, attachment 55, folios 14364 to 14452).

457 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on August 9, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXIX, attachment 54, folios 14266 to 14362).

458 Cf. State Law on the Right of Women to a Life without Violence, published in the Official Gazette on January 24, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 110, folios 16144 to 16163).

459 Cf. Law to prevent and eliminate discrimination in the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on July 7, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 111, folios 16165 to 16178).

460 Cf. Organic law of the Judiciary of the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on August 9, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXIX, attachment 53, folios 14187 to 14264).

461 Cf. Law for the Treatment and Protecting of the victims of crime of the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on October 21, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXIX, attachment 58, folios 14506 to 14513).

462 Cf. Organic law of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the state of Chihuahua published in the Official Gazette on August 9, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXIX, attachment 52, folios 14174 to 14185).

463 Cf. Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, report on the institutional policies implemented to prevent, investigate, punish and eliminate violence against women (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XL, attachment 60, folio 14946).

464 Cf. CNDH, Segundo Informe de Evaluación Integral, supra note 79, folio 4714.

465 Cf. Decree No. 274/02-II-P.O. of May 30, 2002 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 112, folios 16179 to 16193).

466 Cf. Report of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, supra note 463, folio 14944.

467 Cf. Report of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, supra nota 463, folios 14951 and 14952.

468 In February 2004, the database of the National Registry of Victims of Crime was installed in the FEIHM, and the creation of the Forensic Genetics Database was announced (Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua, Primer Informe, June 3, 2004, case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 79, folios 3103 and 3098).

469 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1940 and 1970, and Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9030.

470 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1938 to 1940; Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 101, folios 7449 and 7450.

471 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folios 9156 to 9292, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1938 to 1940.

472 Cf. Decree creating the Commission to Prevent and Eliminate Violence against Women in Ciudad Juárez as an unconcentrated administrative body of the Secretariat of Government, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on February 18, 2004 (case file of attachments to the the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, attachment 7, folios 17403 and 17404), and Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8690.

473 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8708.

474 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8707.

475 Cf. Decree creating the National Commission to Prevent and Eliminate Violence against Women as an unconcentraded administrative body of the Secretariat of Government, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on June 1, 2009 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, attachment 8, folios 17406 to 17409).

476 Cf. The Federation’s budget of expenses for the 2008 Fiscal Exercise, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on December 13, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 85, folios 15794 to 15910). It shows that INMUJERES received 543.2 million Mexican pesos.

477 Cf. Law of the National Women’s Institute, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on January 12, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 87, folios 16010 to 16047). Some of the activities mentioned by the State are included in the attachment to Mexico’s sixth periodic report in compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, November 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 82, folio 15479).

478 In their final written arguments of June 2009, the representatives indicated that ‘‘from 2008 to date, 24 girls and women of Ciudad Juárez have disappeared; there is no information on their whereabouts and the authorities have not taken sufficiently exhaustive and conscientious measures to find them,’’ according to ‘‘an estimated figure based on official information recorded’’ by the NGO, Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa A.C. However, no specific information was provided to the Court on what this official information was, or the methodology used to obtain this figure. Moreover, no relevant documentary evidence was attached.

479 Cf. Articles 32, third paragraph;125, second paragraph; 126;130, and 193 of the Penal Code of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 456, folios 14371, 14390, 14391 and 14404.

480 Cf. Articles 83, fraction I, second paragraph; 121, last paragraph, and 169, fraction IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 457, folios 14281, 14291 and 14301.

481 Cf. Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Criminal Investigation Protocols and Protocols for Personnel Specialized in providing services to Victims (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLVII, attachment 3, folios 16955 to 17082).

482 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, paras. 109 and 110.

483 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9054.

484 Cf. Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, official letter addressed to the Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 17, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 75, folio 15381).

485 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 71, folio 1929.

486 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2174, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2274.

487 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1746.

488 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9200.

489 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. supra nota 454, para. 190.

490 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14582 and 14587 to 14594.

491 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14582 and 14587 to 14594.

492 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 91; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, supra note 454, para. 193, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 308, para. 203.

493 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Primer Informe, supra note 468, folios 2999 to 3142; Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14536, and Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1939.

494 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14532.

495 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14532, 14536 and 14537.

496 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Decision No. A/003/06, supra note 498, folio 15464.

497 Cf. CNDH, Segundo Informe de Evaluación Integral, supra note 72, folio 4664.

498 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Decision No. A/003/06, January 19, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 78, folios 15462 to 15465).

499 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Decision No. A/024/08, January 29, 2008 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 80, folios 15470 to 15473).

500 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1937 and 1963, and CNDH, Segundo Informe de Evaluación Integral, supra note 72, folio 4697.

501 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14532, 14538, 14539 and 14544.

502 Cf. General Law on Gender Equality, published in the Federation’s Official Gazette on August 2, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 106, folios 16079 to 16089).

503 Cf. 2007-2012 National Development Plan, strategy 5.4 of focal point 1, and objective 16 of focal point 3 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 84, folios 15495 to 15792).

504 Cf. State of Chihuahua Law to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination, supra note 459, folios 16164 to 16178.

505 Cf. General Law on Access of Women to a Life without Violence, supra note 124, folios 16091 to 16107.

506 Cf. Law to Protect the Rights of Girls, Boys and Adolescents, supra note 420, folios 16049 to 16063.

507 Cf. Articles 30, 31 and 32 of the Law to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 459, folio 16177; Article 197 of the state of Chihuahua Penal Code, supra note 456, folios 14364 to 14452, and Article 3 of the General Law on Gender Equality, supra note 502, folio 16079.

508 Cf. Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9185.

509 The State attached various contracts signed from 2005 to 2008 with national and international institutions, such as the UNAM, the Instituto de Mediación de Mexico, S.C., the Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, the Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, the Universidad de Barcelona, the Universidad de Gerona, the IMCAA, S.A. de C.V., and the Latin American Forum for Urban Security and Democracy, A.C., in collaboration with local institutions such as the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua and the State Human Rights Commission, as well as federal institutions, such as the National Human Rights Commission (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume L, folios 17565 17833).

510 The State exhibited a list of courses offered over the period of 2005 to 2009, with the name of each course, the place and date it was held, and the names of those who were trained (Cf. Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Center for Criminal and Forensic Studies, Cursos impartidos durante 2005-2009, case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, folios 17537 to 17564).

511 Cf. Articles 135 and 145-k of the Organic Law of the Judiciary of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 460, folios 14220 and 14226.

512 The Court observes that the case file contains a supporting document for a national training course for multipliers, under the Subprogram on Equity and Application of the Gender Equity Manual; on ‘‘Prevention of Domestic Violence,’’ for authorities of the state of Chihuahua Public Security Secretariat, and on ‘‘Women’s Human Rights and Self-esteem,’’ ‘‘Masculinity and Self-esteem,’’ and ‘‘Domestic Violence and Assertiveness,’’ for Chihuahua public officials (Cf. Progress and results of actions within the framework of ‘‘PROEQUIDAD’’, organized by the National Women’s Institute, Directorate General of Evaluation and Statistics, Evaluation Directorate, from January to December 2005, case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 6, folios 15014 to 15016).

513 Cf. 2007-2012 National Development Plan, strategy 5.4., supra note 503, folio 15495 to 15792.

514 Cf. agreement signed by the Executive Secretary General of the Latin American Forum for Urban Security and Democracy and the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihua hua on May 15, 2007 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume L, folios 17675 to 17688).

515 Cf. cooperation agreement for the diploma course ‘‘Domestic violence and human rights’’ signed by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico on April 9, 2007 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume L, folio 17689) and report on institutional policies implemented to prevent, investigate, sanction and eliminate violence against women issued by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XL, attachments 60, folio 14960).

516 Cf. contract for providing services signed by the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua and the Mexican Institute of Applied Sciences and Arts (INMCAA S.A. de C.V.) on February 1, 2007 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume L, folio 17696).

517 The State attached a list from the Center for Criminal and Forensic Studies with the courses offered from 2005 to 2009. It states that a 12-hour course entitled ‘‘Domestic violence: a problem for everyone,’’ was offered to 26 people from June 26 to 28, 2007 (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, folio 17551).

518 On the list of courses held from 2005 to 2009, the State indicated that, in October 2008, the Chihuahua Women’s Institute offered the course ‘‘Forensic reports in cases of gender-based violence‘ to 8 psychologists from the state Attorney General’s Office who treat victims (Cf. Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua, Center for Criminal and Forensic Studies, supra note 510, folio 17563).

519 The State attached a list of the training offered in 2005, which refers to a ‘‘Licentiate in the provision of justice’’ involving 549 people (case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIX, folio 17535).

520 Cf. statement made before notary public by witness Castro Romero on April 27, 2009, attachment 1 (merits case file, volume VIII, folios 2927 and 2928).

521 Cf. testimony of witness Caballero Rodríguez, supra note 386

522 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 251.

523 Cf. List of payments to the General Hospital for mothers of victims of femicides, covering the period from 2002 until May 8, 2007, prepared by the head of social work of that institution and dated May 11, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15138); list of medicines provided by the Social Promotion Directorate to Benita Monárrez Salgado, prepared by the Director of Social Promotion on May 11, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15140); list of medicines provided by the Social Promotion Directorate to Irma Monreal Jaime prepared by the Director of Social Promotion on May 11, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15141); list of medical services provided to individuals belonging to the Victims Support Program prepared by the Director General of the Women’s Hospital, on May 11, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15143); list of medical and psychological assistance provided, prepared by the Center for Prevention, Protection and Services to Women and Families in Abusive Situations, on May 11, 2007 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15165), and official letter No. Jur/0223/ 2007 issued by the Chihuahua Women’s Institute on May 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15173 and 15174).

524 Cf. statement made before notary public by witness Camberos Revilla on April 8, 2009 (merits case file, volume IX, folios 2981 to 2983).

525 Cf. statement made before notary public by witness Galindo López on April 16, 2009 (merits case file, volume X, folios 3308 and 3309).

526 Cf. Testimony given by witness Castro Romero, supra note 520, folios 2922 to 2924.

527 Cf. Testimony given by Mrs. González, supra note 183.

528 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 209, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 203.

529 The State quantified the value of the material assistance as follows: $551,874.27 (five hundred and fifty-one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four Mexican pesos with 27/100) for the next of kin of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez; $545,358.01 (five hundred and forty-five thousand three hundred and fifty-eight Mexican pesos with 01/100) for the family of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, and $504,602.62 (five hundred and four thousand six hundred and two Mexican pesos with 62/100) for the next of kin of Claudia Ivette González.

530 The Commission did not include the father of Laura Berenice Ramos as a victim in this case.

531 Cf. certification of award of support from the Financial Support Fund for the Families of Victims of Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua: to Benita Monárrez Salgado on November 11, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15069 to 15072); to Daniel Ramos Canales on December 13, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15057 to 15061); to Cecilia Herrera Monreal, Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal, Benigno Herrera Monreal and Adrián Herrera Monreal on November 27, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 129 and 130, folios 16303 to 16305); to Irma Monreal Jaime on April 27, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachments 129 and 130, folios 16327 to 16329), and to Irma Josefina González Rodríguez on November 11, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folios 16527 to 16530).

532 The body of evidence only contains a list of the IVI housing that shows that Mrs. González and Mrs. Monreal each received a property on ‘Vista del Pino’’ street. There is also a purchase contract for a property on ‘Vista del Prado street’’ in the sum of $30,000.00 (thirty thousand Mexican pesos) signed by Adrían Herrera Monreal. There is no evidence that any of the three houses received was valued at the amount alleged by the State (Cf. list of victims’ mothers who have received housing from the Housing Institute, case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folio 16570), and private purchase contract for a property signed by Adrián Herrera Monreal on June 19, 2007, case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 130, folios 16458 to 16460).

533 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183. See also, purchase contract signed by Benita Monárrez Salgado on April 18, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 127, folios 15078 and 15079); testimony of witness Camberos Revilla, supra note 524, folio 2982; official letter No. Jur/0223/2007 of the Chihuahua Women’s Institute of May 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15173), and testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folio 3308.

534 Cf. receipt of delivery to Benita Monárrez Salgado of $60,000.00 (sixty thousand Mexican pesos) through the program of productive alternatives on May 31, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 128, folio 16262) and receipt of delivery to Irma Monreal Jaime of $83,660.00 (eighty-three thousand six hundred and sixty Mexican pesos) through the program of productive alternatives on May 31, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 131, folio 16464).

535 Regarding Laura Berenice Ramos: list of support (groceries) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15094); list of support (meat) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15100); receipt for delivery (meat box) to Benita Monárrez Salgado issued by the Crime Victims Support Office on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15098); receipt for delivery (groceries) to Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez issued by the Crime Victims Support Office April 22, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15103); testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folios 3305 to 3309; payment receipts issued by the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General in favor of Mrs. Monárrez Salgado on October 29, November 14 and 28, and December 12 and 29, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15109, 15111, 15113, 15115 and 15117); payment receipts No. AFV- 00294, AFV-00335, AFV-00376 and one without a number issued by the Chihuahua Women’s Institute on May 31, June 15 and 30, and February 3, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15145, 15147, 15151 and 15155); receipt for delivery (heater and gas tank) issued by the Crime Victims Support Unit on February 3, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folio 15233); testimony of witness Camberos Revilla, supra note 524, folios 2981 to 2983, and official letter No. Jur/0223/ 2007 issued by the Chihuahua Women’s Institute on May 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15173 and 15174). Regarding Esmeralda Herrera: list of support (meat) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 130, folio 16277); list of support (groceries) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 130, folio 16274); receipt for delivery (groceries) issued by the Crime Victims Support Department on March 31, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment 130, folio 16280); payment receipts issued by Office of the Deputy State Attorney General in favor of Mrs. Monreal Jaime on April 29, May 29, June 12, July 10 and 31, August 14 and 28, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIV, attachment attachment 130, folios 16267, 16268, 16269, 16270, 16271, 16272 and 16273), and testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folios 3305 to 3309. Regarding Claudia Ivette González: list of support (meat) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004, (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folio 16476); list of support (groceries) prepared by the Victims Support Program of the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folio 16479); record of delivery (meat box) to Irma Josefina González Rodríguez issued by the Crime Victims Support Office on March 30, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folio 16481), and record of delivery (groceries) to Irma Josefina González Rodríguez issued by the Crime Victims Support Office on April 2, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLV, attachment 132, folio 16538). The case file includes a list of cheques issued by the Office of the Deputy State Attorney General, Northern Zone, over the period 2002 to 2006, prepared by the Administrative Department of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua. However, the Court will not examine this list because the State did not relate it to any support, and the amounts do not coincide with any concept alleged by the State. In addition, the State did not attach the cheques that it had supposedly emitted to the probative material (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15168 to 15172).

536 Cf. testimony of witness Camberos Revilla, supra note 524, folios 2977 to 2985; official letter No. Jur/0223/2007 issued by the Chihuahua Women’s Institute on May 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, attachment 133, folios 15173 and 15174), and testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folios 3305 to 3309.

537 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folio 14598.

538 Cf. decision No. CA/001/05 of the Advisory Council on the application of the Financial Support Fund for the Families of Victims of Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez, Chihuahua, of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of July 29, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XL, attachment 59, folio 14919).

539 Cf. certification of delivery of support from the Support Fund to: Benita Monárrez Salgado on November 11, 2005; Daniel Ramos Canales, on December 13, 2005; Cecilia Herrera Monreal, Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal, Benigno Herrera Monreal and Adrián Herrera Monreal on November 27, 2006; Irma Monreal Jaime on April 27, 2006, and Irma Josefina González Rodríguez on November 11, 2005, (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLI, folios 15057 to 15061,15069 to 15072, and case file of attachments to the the final written arguments of the State, volume XLIV, attachment 128, folios 16303 to 16305, 16327 to 16329, and volume XLV, attachment 131, folios 16527 to 16530).

540 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, para. 35, and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of April 3, 2009, fifth considering paragraph.

541 Mrs. González and Mrs. Monreal acknowledged that they had received the ‘‘pies de casas.’’ However, the State did not contest the statement made by one of the mothers during the public hearing in relation to the condition of the buildings, that ‘‘we were given a pie de casa [foundations for houses] which is twenty meters or so; it is in a dangerous area, it is in a rubbish dump, [. . .] it is dangerous, it is a high-risk area’’ (Cf. testimony of Mrs. González, supra note 183). Nor did it contest the testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrido that the pie de casa the State had granted them ‘‘[i]s a room of approximately 4 x 4 meters, in a lot far from the city that lacks any kind of services and, at the outset, there was no public transport, which meant that they had to spend up to two hours traveling to their places of work, and there were long periods when the children had to remain alone’’ (Cf. testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrifo, supra note 186, folio 3370).

542 Cf. testimony of witness Galindo López, supra note 525, folio 3308.

543 Cf. testimony of witness Camberos Revilla, supra note 524, folio 2982.

544 Mrs. González referred to expenses for copies and other items and Mrs. Monárrez referred to expenses for DNA analyses (Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez and Mrs. González, supra note 183).

545 The representatives exhibited tables calculating the amount of the victims’ loss of earnings, but did not explain how the formula had been developed (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXIII, attachment 19, folios 8099 to 8105).

546 For the life expectancy rates in Mexico for women, the State referred to the official page of the National Institute of Geographical and Statistical Information (INEGI): http://www.inegi.-gob.mx. This page shows that the average life expectancy was taken from the National Population Council of Mexico (CONAPO).

547 Non-pecuniary damage may comprise the pain and suffering caused to the direct victim and the next of kin, the impairment of values that are significant to an individual, and also the non-pecuniary damage caused by alterations in the living conditions of the victim and their next of kin. Since it is not possible to allocate a precise monetary amount to such damage, it can only be compensated by the payment of a sum of money or the delivery of goods or services with a pecuniary value established by the Court, in equity, as well as by acts or works of a public scope or impact designed to acknowledge the dignity of the victim and avoid the occurrence of human rights violations. (Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 218, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 111).

548 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 219, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 446, para. 100.

549 Cf. Case of the ‘‘Mapiripán Massacre’’ v. Colombia, supra note 252, para. 288; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 297, para. 239, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 184.

550 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 417, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 252, para. 194.

551 Cf. Case of Chaparro Á lvarez and Lapo I´ñiguez. v. Ecuador, supra note 265, para. 275; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 259, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá, supra note 9, para. 215.

1 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149.

2 Cf. Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125

3 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 1, para. 138.

4 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 1, para. 146.

5 Cf. Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 2, para. 162

6 For example, European Court of Human Rights, Kilic v. Turkey (Application no. 22492/93)Judgment Strasbourg, 28 March 2000, para. 63, and Opuz v. Turkey (Application no. 33401/02), Judgment Strasbourg, 9 June 2009. para. 129.

7 Cf. Osman v. The United Kingdom (87/1997/871/1083). Judgment Strasbourg, 28 October 1998, para. 116.

8 Cf. Osman v. The United Kingdom, supra note 7, para. 115

9 Cf. Osman v. The United Kingdom, supra note 7, para. 115

10 Cf. Osman v. The United Kingdom, supra note 7, para. 115

11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 174.

12 Cf. Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 155.

13 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 78.

14 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123.

15 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 14, para. 123.

16 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 14, para. 123.

17 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 110.

18 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 121.

1 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No.164, para. 79, and Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 81.

2 Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Ireland v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 5310/71), Judgment Strasbourg, 18 January 1978, para. 167.

3 Cf. General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7): 10/03/92 CCPR General Comment No. 20.

4 Cf. General Comment No. 20, supra note 3, para. 4.

5 Cf. General Comment No. 20, supra note 3, para. 2. There is also a reference to acts of torture committed by private individuals in para. 13 of this General Comment, which reads:

States parties should indicate when presenting their reports the provisions of their criminal law which penalize torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, specifying the penalties applicable to such acts, whether committed by public officials or other persons acting on behalf of the State, or by private persons. Those who violate Article 7, whether by encouraging, ordering, tolerating or perpetrating prohibited acts, must be held responsible.

6 Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey, (Application no. 33401/02), Judgment Strasbourg, 9 June 2009, para. 159. See also, Z and others v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 29392/95), Judgment Strasbourg 10 May 2001, para. 73.

7 Cf. European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey, supra note 6, para. 159.

8 Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes:

The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture:

  • A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so.

  • A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto.

9 Article 1(1) of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment establishes:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

10 Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2 on implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, U.N. doc. CAT/C/ GC/2, of 24 January 2008, para. 18.

11 2008 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, doc. A/HRC/7/3 of 15 January 2008, para. 31.

12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para.103. Similarly, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 102; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 92, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 112.

13 Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 112. See also Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 20 June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 117, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 271.

14 Cf. International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Trial chamber, Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, Judgment of 22 February 2001.

15 Costello-Roberts v. UK, 25 March 1993, Series A, No 247- C, paras. 27-28; HLR v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports 1997- III, p. 758, para. 40, and A v. UK, 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2692, para. 22.

16 Cf. International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Trial chamber, Prosecutor v Furundžija, Case IT- 95-17/1-T, Judgment, 10 December 1998, para. 160.

17 Article 29(b) of the Convention establishes:

No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as:

  • restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party;

18 Article 5(2) of the Convention establishes:

There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

19 Cf. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, supra note 14, para. 483.

20 Cf. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, supra note 14, para. 484.

* The author was a legal advisor to the litigation of the case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, those of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, or those of the Organization of American States.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Legal Materials
  • ISSN: 0020-7829
  • EISSN: 1930-6571
  • URL: /core/journals/international-legal-materials
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed