152. The facts of this case do not in any way demonstrate that the State had conducted an immediate search after receiving, between May and July of 1985, complaints on the disappearances of Mr. Tassino Asteazu and Mr. González González (supra, paras. 78, 90 and 142). The first State actions to collect information on the victims’ possible fate date from 2005 and the observations of the State show that that information is not conclusive. Uruguay has stated that there are “different versions” and that the search continues (supra para. 134). More than 44 years after the disappearances, the whereabouts of these two persons or their mortal remains are still unknown and there is no record of effective actions undertaken in that regard. In this aspect, the State has not shown due diligence. B.2.2.2 Regarding the determination of criminal responsibilities 153. Regarding actions on the determination of criminal responsibilities, prior to 2006 the principal obstacle to progress in judicial investigations was the application of the Expiry Law, an issue that has already been examined (supra paras. 142 to 150). The Court, therefore, considers that it is not necessary to thoroughly assess specific aspects of the actions that took place prior to that year. The Court notes that neither is it necessary to analyze alleged violations related to the intervention of the military jurisdiction nor the jurisdictional conflict between the ordinary and military jurisdictions that was resolved in favor of the former (supra para. 128). 154. As to what has occurred since 2006, the Court notes that, regarding the investigations into the forced disappearances of Mr. González Gonzalez and Mr. Tassino Asteazu, the arguments of the Commission and of the representative refer to aspects that are related to the reasonability of the length of the proceedings and the right to know the truth, issues that will be analyzed later (infra paras. 172 to 180). With respect to the inquiry regarding the violent deaths of the three women, two additional issues will now be examined: the lack of a perspective of gender and the delay in resolving the remedies. 155. Lack of a perspective of gender. – With respect to the first issue, the alleged lack of a perspective of gender in the domestic proceedings, although it was not argued by the parties in their initial briefs, the Court will take into consideration the Convention of Belém do Pará, a treaty in force in Uruguay since May 1996 (supra para. 12). It will do so on the basis the principle of iura novit curia (supra footnote 132) and because the State’s right of defense is not affected as it could refer to events that support the violation of that treaty and because the issue was raised in the public hearing and in its final written arguments. 156. The Court has indicated that Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará specifically obligates the States Parties to apply due diligence to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women.183 When an act of violence occurs against a woman “it is particularly important that the authorities in charge of the investigation conduct it in a determined and effective manner, taking into account society’s obligation to reject to investigate the offense of forced disappearance, it has an autonomous nature. The Court so recognized it when it indicated that the search may use means other than the judicial.” Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 193 and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, para. 129. 183 42