43 loss of information,142 misplacement of body parts in the custody of the Public Prosecutor’s Office,143 and failure to consider the attacks on women as part of a global phenomenon of gender-based violence.144 According to the U.N. Rapporteur on judicial independence, following a visit to Ciudad Juárez in 2001, he “was amazed to learn of the total inefficiency, incompetency, indifference, insensitivity and negligence of the police who investigated these cases earlier.”145 For its part, the Special Prosecutor’s Office indicated in its 2006 report that, in 85% of 139 earlier investigations analyzed, it had detected responsibilities that could be attributed to public servants, serious deficiencies and omissions that “prevent resolving the respective murders, causing impunity.”146 1.7.2. Discriminatory attitude of the authorities 151. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the attitude of the State authorities to the killings of women in Ciudad Juárez was extremely discriminatory and dilatory, a situation that the Commission described as an “alarming pattern of response and stereotyped conceptions of the missing women.” In particular, the pattern “was reflected on the part of the [S]tate officials that the search and protection of women reported as having disappeared was not important” and meant that, initially, the authorities refused to investigate. 152. In this regard, the State indicated that the culture of discrimination against women contributed to the fact that “the murders were not perceived at the outset as a significant problem requiring immediate and forceful action on the part of the relevant authorities.”147 The Tribunal observes that, although the State did not acknowledge this during the proceedings before the Court, it did forward the document in which this acknowledgement appears;148 accordingly, it forms part of the body of evidence that will be examined in accordance with sound judicial discretion. 153. Various sources affirm that the context of gender-based discrimination had an impact on the way state officials responded to the crimes.149 According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on judicial independence, “certainly in the beginning, there was a great lack of sensitivity on the part of the police and prosecutors, who even went as far 142 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1750; Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folios 1898 and 1899; testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2332. 143 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folios 2371 and 2372. 144 Cf. Report of the United Nations Committee of International Experts, supra note 76, folio 1897; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2154; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2227, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2279. 145 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100. 146 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 14575 and 14609. 147 Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1957. 148 Cf. Response of the Mexican Government to the CEDAW report under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, January 27, 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXV, attachment 6, folios 8612 to 8653). 149 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folios 1734 and 1742; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928; Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folios 2259 and 2269; testimony of expert witness Pineda Jaimes, supra note 112, folio 2832, and testimony of expert witness Jusidman, supra note 99, folio 3808.