VI FACTS 40. In this chapter, the Court will examine, first, the context in which the facts of the case occurred and, second, the facts of the case concerning Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, which include: (i) the report of her disappearance; (ii) the discovery of her corpse and the initial procedures conducted; (iii) the criminal investigation opened into her death; (iv) the investigation into the facts of the case opened by the Guatemalan Ombudsman; (v) the disciplinary proceedings opened in the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity, and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Public Prosecution Service, and (vi) the disciplinary proceeding opened in the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System. A. Context in which the facts of the case occurred 41. The Commission and the representatives asserted that this case formed part of a context of high levels of acts of violence against women and girls in Guatemala, as well as of the general impunity of such acts. In particular, the Commission affirmed that, since 2001, both national and international agencies, and also non-governmental organizations had expressed concern owing to the State’s failure to comply with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against women, and with regard to the context in which this was intensifying in Guatemala. In addition, it indicated that there was consensus that, despite the existence of several parallel institutions promoting the advancement of women, their mandates overlapped and, consequently, they suffered from weak coordination by the State and a lack of resources to implement their programs. It also underlined that the situation in Guatemala had not changed since the time of the facts of the cases of Veliz Franco et al. (2001) and Velásquez Paiz et al. (2005). It asserted that “the evidence points to a marked increase in the rates of violent deaths of women with specific signs of gender-based violence.” 42. The State indicated that it was still necessary that both the petitioners and the Commission establish why the facts of this case conformed to the specific elements of genderbased violence. In this regard, it asserted that, in this case, it had not been proved that there were signs that the physical integrity of Claudina Velásquez had been violated before her death and, in particular, that she had been a victim of sexual violence. Thus, as established in the record of the removal of her body and the examinations performed by the Judiciary’s forensic physician and experts from the Technical Department of the Public Prosecution Service, “Claudina’s death cannot be considered to fall within the context of violence against women.” It also stated that the statistics indicated that “men are the victims in more than 80% of the violent deaths in the country.” 43. In the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has examined the different historical, social and political contexts that situated the facts that allegedly violated the American Convention within the framework of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In some cases, the context made it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations, as a practice applied or tolerated by the State, or as part of massive, and systematic or generalized attacks on some sector of the population. The context has also been taken into account to understand and assess the evidence, and to determine the State’s international responsibility, the appropriateness of certain measures of reparation, and the standards established with regard to the obligation to investigate such cases. 24 Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 49, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 43. 24 15