effective investigation. The authorities should presume that the disappeared person has been deprived of liberty and is still alive until there is no longer any uncertainty about her fate.166 114. The Commission and the Court have already expressed their views about the growing climate of violence against women in Guatemala around the time of the events in this case.167 Therefore, the standard of strict due diligence upon receiving a report of a missing woman is applicable to this case. 115. Moreover, in addition to the possibility that Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez was a victim of an act of violence against women by non-state actors, in this case, the hypothesis of a forced disappearance by state agents was suggested from the moment that this case was initially reported. 116. Therefore, it is pertinent to recall that in cases of alleged forced disappearance, the Court has found that “the investigation will have certain specific connotations that follow from the nature and complexity of the incident under investigation; that is, in addition, the investigation should include all the measures necessary to determine the fate of the victim and establish their whereabouts.”168 The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has clearly stated that the duty to investigate facts of this type continues as long as there is uncertainty about the fate of the person who has disappeared, given that the right of the relatives to know the fate of the victim and, as the case may be, the location of their remains is a fair expectation that the State has a duty to meet using all means available to it.169 117. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 25 of the American Convention, the Court regards habeas corpus petitions as a means to ensure a person's liberty as well as to prevent their disappearance or uncertainty about their place of detention.170 The Court has also held that in addition to formally existing, such remedies should also be suitable and capable of producing “results or addressing violations of rights.”171 The IACHR recalls that in cases of alleged forced disappearance it is not “the mere formal verification of the official detainee records, as occurred in this case, or the acceptances as true of the denial of the detention by those presumably responsible, without an objective, impartial and independent verification, is neither reasonable nor diligent and does not constitute an effective remedy.”172 118. It follows from the foregoing that in the instant case the State's duty to investigate was clear for multiple reasons, as were the requisite nature and rigor of its investigation. First, for the fact that the complaint concerned a disappearance from which it could be logically assumed that the life and physical integrity of the missing person were in danger. In that sense, a prompt and diligent response in terms of an 166 Veliz 141, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 283. 167 In the Case of Véliz Franco v. Guatemala, the Inter-American Court took note of the situation that existed in 2001 (the year of the disappearance and death of the victim in that case) and declared that there was a climate of violence against women. Bearing in mind that the references cited by the Court speak of rising numbers of cases of violence against women by 2001, it is reasonable to surmise that said climate already existed the preceding year. See Veliz, pars. 73-81. 168 I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 439. 169 I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 439, citing. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 181; and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, par. 179. 170 I/A Court H.R., Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C No. 258, par. 142; and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011, Series C No. 232, par. 158. 171 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, pars. 63-66; and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C No. 258, par. 142. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C No. 258, par. 143. 24