126 crimes; (ii) handling of crimes related to murders; (iii) reception of reports of missing women, and (iv) provision of services and care to victims.495 516. The Special Prosecutor’s Office concluded its task in 2006, when the 2004 agreement creating it was rescinded.496 On February 16, 2006, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic delivered the final report of the Special Prosecutor’s Office to the CNDH. The CNDH stated that “the final report did not describe any significant progress with regard to the three previous reports, which this National Commission duly commented on in its evaluation report of August 23, 2005.”497 517. The Special Prosecutor’s Office was subsequently substituted on two occasions: on February 16, 2006, by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes related to Acts of Violence against Women (also known as “FEVIM” for its name in Spanish), attached to the Office of Attorney General of the Republic, in order to respond to crimes related to acts of violence against women throughout the country;498 and, on January 31, 2008, by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Violence against Women and People Trafficking, also attached to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, to investigate and prosecute federal crimes related to acts of violence against women, as well as human trafficking.499 518. At the local level, in August 2005, the state of Chihuahua modified the purpose of the FEIHM because, according to the State, “previously, it had focused exclusively on murders with a sexual motive”; from that date on, it also included “all the cases of intentional murders in which the victims were women.”500 519. The Court observes that the activity of the Special Prosecutor’s Office was limited to systematizing the information on the murders of women in Ciudad Juárez and investigating only those crimes that fell within the federal jurisdiction.501 In this regard also, the Tribunal does not have recent information on the functioning and effectiveness of the modified FEIHM. 520. The representatives did not support their request for redress with clear, pertinent and sufficient arguments concerning the problems of access to justice that could have arisen from domestic law applicable to the mechanism of transfer to the federal jurisdiction. In addition, they did not provide arguments on the specific evidence about the policies designed by the State to resolve the problem in recent years. The foregoing prevents the Court from ruling on this request for reparation. 4.2.6. Prohibition for any official to discriminate based on gender 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.