1(1) of the Convention and Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará,” due to the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the rape and acts of torture inflicted on the victims.22 12. Subsequently, in 2012, the Court examined violations of Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” while hearing the cases of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala,23 the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador24 and Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala,25 due to the failure to investigate facts related to torture, rape and other acts of violence against women.26 13. Following these rulings, in 2013, in the case of J. v. Peru,27 the Court declared a failure to comply with the obligation to ensure rights owing to an ineffective investigation into threats, and physical and sexual violence (which constituted violations of Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention),28 in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará.” 14. In 2014, in the case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala29 — related to the State’s failure to provide an effective response to the report of the disappearance of María Isabel Veliz Franco, 15 years of age, as well as the flaws in the investigation into the facts that involved the discovery of her body – in addition to declaring the violation of Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará”30 for the second time in its case law, the Court established the violation of Article 7(c) of this instrument, owing to failure to conduct the investigation with a gender perspective, due to the possibility that the murder had been committed for reasons of gender; deficiencies in the State’s actions (as a result of the inexistence of laws and protocols concerning this type of facts), and actions with a discriminatory bias, as well as I/A Court HR, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010 Series C No. 215, paras. 197 and 198, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216, paras. 181 and 182. 23 I/A Court HR, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250. 24 I/A Court HR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252. 25 I/A Court HR, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253. 26 I/A Court HR, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 227 and 236; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252, paras. 2 and 252, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, paras. 2 and 281. 27 The case related to the unlawful and arbitrary detention of J., and the home searches conducted on April 13, 1992, by State agents who had presumably perpetrated acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including sexual violence. I/A Court HR, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275. 28 I/A Court HR, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 2November 7, 2013. Series C No. 275, paras. 365 to 368. 29 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277. 30 In that case, the Court declared the violation of Articles 7(b) and 7(c) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará.” It also declared the violation of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1), as well as 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” based on “the lack of due diligence in the investigation, from the outset, which resulted in the impunity of the facts” in reference to the initial hours after the report that María Isabel Veliz was missing. I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 157. 22 5