44. In this case, the Commission and the representatives based their arguments on the alleged context of violence against women in Guatemala, referring to the case of Veliz Franco et al., as well as to documents of national and international agencies and non-governmental organizations. Meanwhile, the State asserted that, in the judgment in the case of Veliz Franco et al., the Court had recognized that “before and after the facts [of that] case, [the State] ha[d] adopted diverse measures aimed at combating discrimination and violence against women. Thus, it was worth noting the Law for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Domestic Violence of November 28, 1996, as well as the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women enacted in 2008.” Added to this, it indicated that, in the said judgment, the Court had acknowledged that “the State had taken measures to deal with the problems affecting women.” The Court will use these documents as a fundamental part of the evidence of the contemporary historical and political context of the facts of this case. On this point, the Court will take into account the arguments on the context submitted by the State, and also its comments on the evidence. A.1. Homicidal violence in Guatemala, its specificity and evolution in relation to women victims, and State actions in the investigation of the murder of women 45. The report “Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio” of the Commission for Historical Clarification (hereinafter “CEH”) stated that “[w]omen were victims of all forms of human rights violations during the armed conflict, but they also suffered from specific forms of gender-based violence.” The CEH reached the conviction that the devaluation of women was absolute and allowed members of the Army to attack them with total impunity, and it concluded that, during the internal armed conflict, the courts of justice revealed themselves to be incapable of investigating, processing, prosecuting and punishing those responsible. 25 In the case of Veliz Franco et al., in its judgment of May 19, 2014, the Court indicated that this situation had persisted following the end of the armed conflict and that it was reflected in a culture of violence that had continued over the years and that included a substructure of violence that especially affected women. In this regard, the Court noted that, although it was difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when this started, in any case, in December 2001, there was a context of an escalation of homicidal violence against women in Guatemala and there were indications that the State was aware of this. Also, “among all the violent deaths of women that occurred in 2001 in Guatemala, the existence of gender-based homicides was not exceptional.”26 Furthermore, the escalation of homicidal violence against women increased throughout the country in 2004 and 2005, and the evidence provided in this case indicates that high levels of this type of violence continue.27 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 68. Citing, CEH, “Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio,” volume III, June 1999, pp. 13 and 27. Available at: http://www.iom.int/seguridad-fronteriza/lit/land/cap2_2.pdf 26 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 73, 81 and 152. The Court notes that, in May 2008, Guatemala adopted Decree No. 22-2008 or the Law against Femicide and other forms of violence against women, which defined actionable offenses, including that of “femicide.” Article 3 of the law states that this offense consists in the “[v]iolent death of a woman in the context of unequal power relations between men and women, in the exercise of the power of gender against women.” Furthermore, in the judgment in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, this Court used the expression “’gender-based murder of a woman,’ also known as femicide.” Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 143. The Court clarifies that, for the purposes of this judgment, it will use the expression “genderbased murder of a woman” to refer to “femicide.” 27 Cf. Economic and Social Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences,” Mission to Guatemala, E/CN.4/2005/72/Add.3, February 10, 2005, paras. 28 and 29. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/108/17/PDF/G0510817.pdf?OpenElement; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Press release on the official visit to Guatemala, May 27, 2006. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C7F2A41A172BC438C125717D0056605A?opendocument; United Nations, Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Guatemala, December 31, 2012, A/HRC/22/8, paras. 23 and 36. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/50f91f3a2.html; United Nations, Committee against Torture, Final observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of 25 16