3. The persistence of this problem in the region – despite diverse actions by the States as noted in the instant case – underscores the urgent need to pay special attention to the “obligation of prevention” referred to in Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará”6; an obligation that, I consider, is of the greatest relevance to avoid the barbarity of the phenomenon of “femicide” and, in general, all forms of violence against women. 4. Consequently, I submit this concurring opinion in order to highlight some issues that were relevant in the study and analysis made in this case of the State obligation of prevention, because I consider it pertinent to observe carefully the moment in the facts analyzed in the judgment at which the State’s international responsibility was constituted for failing to comply with its obligation of prevention – with special emphasis on the proven “context” of an increase in the disappearance and violent murder of women. 5. I consider that this analysis should differ from the one made by the Court in previous cases,7 and accord greater relevance to the “first moment” of this general obligation of prevention (State actions before the victim went missing), which evidently conditioned the State’s actions during the “second moment” (State actions between the time of the family’s report and the discovery of the victim’s body), as I will try to explain in this opinion. And I will do so, based on the criterion of the “two moments” of the obligation of prevention established in the two previous cases on this matter, interpreted in light of the State’s obligations established in the American Convention and particularly in Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará,” bearing in mind that Guatemala ratified this treaty on January 4, 1995, with no reservations or limitations. 6. For greater clarity, this opinion is divided into the following sections: I. The “Convention of Belém do Pará” in the case law of the Inter-American Court (paras. 7 to 16); II. The “obligation of prevention” and its “two moments” in the cases of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico (2009), and Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala (2014) (paras. 17 to 31); III. The “obligation of prevention” in the case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala (2015) (paras. 32 to 49), and IV. Conclusions (paras. 50 to 58). I. THE “CONVENTION OF BELÉM DO PARÁ” IN THE CASE LAW OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT “Article 7: “The States Parties condemn all forms of violence against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: (a) refrain from engaging in any act or practice of violence against women and to ensure that their authorities, officials, personnel, agents, and institutions act in conformity with this obligation; (b) apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women; (c) include in their domestic legislation penal, civil, administrative and any other type of provisions that may be needed to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to adopt appropriate administrative measures where necessary; (d) adopt legal measures to require the perpetrator to refrain from harassing, intimidating or threatening the woman or using any method that harms or endangers her life or integrity, or damages her property; (e) take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to amend or repeal existing laws and regulations or to modify legal or customary practices which sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women; (f) establish fair and effective legal procedures for women who have been subjected to violence which include, among others, protective measures, a timely hearing and effective access to such procedures; (g) establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies; and (h) adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to this Convention.” 7 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, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277. 6 2