68 Prosecutor’s Office was established as “an initial response to the phenomenon of violence against women in Ciudad Juárez.” 263. In this regard, the 2003 report of the IACHR Rapporteur indicated that, according to information provided by authorities of the State of Chihuahua during her 2002 visit, this Prosecutor’s Office “has initiated the steps necessary to promptly and properly respond” to the murders; it comprised agents “with specialized training”; it had been “provided the technical capacity to better respond to these crimes”; various information systems had been installed and “each homicide was assigned to a particular group of agents responsible for the investigation from start to finish in order to avoid the problem of possible lost or missing information, and ensure the integrity of the investigation.”278 264. Regarding the results achieved by the FEIHM, the Court underscores the State’s answer to the 2005 CEDAW Report in which it indicated that “its establishment led to an investigation process that has had promising results and has made it possible to identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators in 45.72 per cent of the cases.”279 In this regard, the Tribunal observes that it has previously been established (supra para. 159) that, in 2005, around 38% of the cases of murders of women in Ciudad Juárez concluded with convictions or sanctions. Secondly, the Court observes that in the same State answer to the CEDAW Report, it explained that the figure of 45.72% of judgments refers to non-sexual crimes, while of the 92 sexual crimes documented, judgments had been rendered in only 4 cases280 (supra para. 161). 265. The FEIHM had several special prosecutors,281 most of whom only remained there for a few months, and they had insufficient information to make a comprehensive analysis of the homicides and disappearances that had occurred in Ciudad Juárez, and of the impact of the FEIHM on this situation.282 266. Lastly, according to the 2003 Report of the IACHR Rapporteur, “[t]he information available reflects that efforts made to improve the response to these crimes through the Office of the Special Prosecutor have resulted in some improvements” and that “[c]ertainly the situation is not as grave as in the first years in which bags of bones were sometimes left as the only record in the aftermath of a killing.”283 267. The case file before the Court also shows that on June 27, 1998, the law on the state’s public security system was published in the Official Gazette of the state of Chihuahua;284 nevertheless, the State did not provide any arguments or evidence of how that measure contributed to prevent, as alleged, “a repetition of the acts of violence against women.” 268. The Tribunal takes note that, according to the Organic Law of the Executive 278 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1752. 279 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1963. 280 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 14617 to 14651. 281 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1937 and CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2235. 282 Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2235 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2278. 283 284 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1752. Cf. Law on the State Public Security System issued by the H. State Congress, published in the State’s Official Gazette No. 51 of June 27, 1998, and amended in 2002, 2004 and 2005 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLII, attachment 72, folios 15326 to 15364).