37 in 2005 that it “was able to determine that the number of cases in which there was a pattern of conduct identified as the phenomenon known as ‘Muertas de Juárez’ [the dead women of Juarez], was about 30% of the 379 identified murders,” or in other words, around 113 women, Furthermore, the Commission to Prevent and Eliminate Violence against Women in Ciudad Juárez (hereinafter the “Ciudad Juárez Commission”) indicated that, even though there continued to be discrepancies as regards absolute figures, different reports agreed that one-third of all the murders of women were those classified as sex-related and/or serial; the latter “are those with a repeated pattern in which, generally, the victim does not know her attacker and is deprived of her liberty and subjected to multiple abuse and suffering until she dies.”110 CEDAW and Amnesty International reports concur that around one-third of the murders had a component of sexual violence or similar characteristics.111 1.5. Gender-based violence 128. According to the representatives, the issue of gender is the common denominator of the violence in Ciudad Juárez, which “occurs as a culmination of a situation characterized by the reiterated and systematic violation of human rights.” They alleged that “cruel acts of violence are perpetrated against girls and women merely because of their gender and, only in some cases, are they murdered as a culmination of this public and private violence.” 129. The State indicated that the murders “have different causes, with different authors, in very distinct circumstances and with diverse criminal patterns, but are influenced by a culture of gender-based discrimination.” According to the State, one of the structural factors that have led to situations of violence against women in Ciudad Juárez is the change in family roles, as a result of women working. The State explained that, in Ciudad Juárez, the maquiladora industry started up in 1965, and increased in 1993 with the North American Free Trade Agreement. It indicated that, by giving preference to hiring women, the maquila industries caused changes in their working life that also had an impact on their family life because “traditional roles began to change, with women becoming the household provider.” This, according to the State, led to conflicts within the family because women began to present an image of being more competitive and financially independent.112 In addition, the State cited the CEDAW report to indicate that “[t]his social change in women’s roles has not been the criminal phenomenon constituted by paradigmatic cases; those in which there may be evidence of what the [Special Prosecutor’s Office] calls “murders of women with similar characteristics and/or patterns of conduct.” Similarly, it complained that the Special Prosecutor’s Office “has not yet approached its analysis from a gender perspective, despite international recommendations” (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folio 9073). 110 Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Tercer informe de gestión, supra note 101, folios 8996 and 8997. 111 According to the 2005 CEDAW report, the Chihuahua Women’s Institute referred to 90 cases, the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the Delegate of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic in Ciudad Juárez mentioned 93 cases and the NGOs counted 98 (Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1924). 112 These allegations concur with the conclusions of the first progress report of the Ciudad Juárez Commission, which indicated that, during the 1970s and 1980s, the maquila industries were characterized by employing women almost exclusively, in a context of male unemployment; this “produced a cultural shock within the families” and when “the men could not find work, it was the women who supported the household” (Comisión para Prevenir y Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres en Ciudad Juárez, Primer Informe de Gestión, supra note 67, folio 8663. See also, Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922; statement made before notary public by expert witness Pineda Jaimes on April 15, 2009, merits case file, volume VIII, folio 2825, and testimony of expert witness Jusidman Rapoport, supra note 99, folio 3778).