addressed the problem of the lack of an immediate search mechanism for missing women – to date this has not been adopted by the Guatemalan Congress. 88 48. In this regard, the Court concluded in the need “to regulate the search for missing women in Guatemala” and, consequently required the State “to adopt a national strategy, system, mechanism or program, by legislative or other means, to ensure the immediate and effective search for missing women, and that ensures that in cases of reports of this nature, the corresponding authorities receive them immediately, without the need for formalities and, at the same time, initiate actions to locate the possible victims and prevent the violation of their rights to life and to personal integrity.”89 49. In this scenario, it is evident that, to address the context of violence against women in Guatemala, the State must establish laws, measures or a mechanism that, regardless of the fact that they exist, are “effective” in “practice” – in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention – aimed at preventing the disappearance of women through diligent and appropriate actions by the authorities entailing the immediate search for these women and prevent the perpetration of violations of their human rights. IV. CONCLUSION 50. The culture of discrimination and violence against women is a phenomenon that persists up until the present, nullifying the dignity and also the enjoyment and exercise of the human rights of women in the Americas. To confront this situation, the State obligation “of prevention” plays an essential role, to which, I consider, States should pay special attention. 51. As emphasized in the judgment, the obligation of prevention is an essential presumption to ensure the rights to life and to personal integrity,90 and “encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the safeguard of human rights and that ensure that eventual violations of these rights are truly considered and dealt with as wrongful acts that, as such, may result in punishment for those who commit them, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences.”91 52. In particular, Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” establishes State obligations to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women,92 which specify and supplement the State obligations regarding compliance with the rights recognized in the American Convention, including those established in Articles 4 and 5.93 And the Court has indicated that States must adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence, in cases of violence against women.94 Thus, the general obligation of prevention or during its Para. 265 of the judgment. Para. 266 of the judgment. 90 Para. 107 of the judgment. 91 Para. 107 of the judgment. Citing: I/A Court HR, Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice)v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 519. 92 Para. 108 of the judgment. 93 Para. 108 of the judgment. Citing: I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 346, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 133. 94 Para. 108 of the judgment. Citing: I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 258, 88 89 14