30 with its obligation to ensure the right to life of the victims “by adopting measures to prevent their murders, thus violating [A]rticle 4 of the American Convention, in connection to [A]rticles 1(1) and 2 [thereof].” It also asked the Court “to find that the State failed in its obligation to act diligently to prevent, investigate and punish the acts of violence suffered by [the victims] in violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” Lastly, it maintained that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an effective and adequate investigation into the disappearances and subsequent deaths of Mss. González, Herrera and Ramos, in violation of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention. According to the Commission, “[d]espite the fact that six years have passed, the State has not made any progress in the clarification of the facts or regarding who are the responsible parties.” 110. The representatives concurred with the Commission and also alleged that “the State’s failure to protect the human rights of the victims refers to the right to life, but also to the right to humane treatment and to personal liberty, directly related to the right to due process.” They indicated that “the failure of the authorities to act or react to the reports of disappearances, not only facilitated the victims’ murders, but also the deprivation of their liberty and torture, despite the known situation of risk for women.” 111. Despite acknowledging “the serious nature of these murders,” the State denied that it had committed “any violation” of the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty. According to the State, neither the Commission nor the representatives “had proved that State agents were in any way responsible for the murders.” In addition, it argued that, during the second stage of the investigations into the three cases starting in 2004, “the irregularities were fully rectified, the case files were reactivated and the investigations were started up again on a scientific basis, and even with international support.” According to the State, “impunity does not exist. The investigations into the cases are still open and measures are still being taken to identify those responsible.” 112. This difference of opinion requires the Court to examine the context of the facts of the case and the conditions in which said facts can be attributed to the State, thus entailing its international responsibility derived from the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Furthermore, despite the State’s acquiescence, it is still necessary to determine the nature and severity of the violations that occurred with regard to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this treaty, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. To this end, the Court will now make the pertinent factual and legal findings, examining the State’s obligations of respect, guarantee and non-discrimination. 1. Context 1.1. Ciudad Juárez 113. Ciudad Juárez is located in the north of the state of Chihuahua, on the border with El Paso, Texas. It has a population of more than 1.2 million inhabitants,63 and is an industrial city – where the “maquila industry” (manufacturing and/or assembly plants, hereinafter referred to as “maquila,” “maquiladora” or “maquilas”) has 63 Cf. Radiografía Socioeconómica del Municipio de Juárez prepared by the Municipal Research and Planning Institute, 2002 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXV, attachment 2, folios 8488 to 8490, 8493, 8495 and 8510).