failure to respect a reasonable time frame in the initial stage of the investigation and the substantiation of the facts.31 15. That same year, in the case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru,32 the Court again determined violations of Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará.” On the one hand, together with violations of Articles 8(1) and 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention, and also of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, owing to the State’s failure to comply with the obligation to investigate the sexual violence that was clear from the facts that occurred to the victim during her detention in the Yanamayo Prison, and those that occurred in the DIVISE and the DINCOTE;33 and, on the other hand, together with violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 11, as well as Articles 8(1), 25 and 2 of the American Convention, and 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, owing to the stereotyped assessment of the evidence by the Judiciary, which constituted gender-based discrimination in access to justice,34 and also due to the sexual violence and torture suffered by the victim.35 16. As can be appreciated from this brief overview, the Court’s case law has not remained on the sidelines of the problem of violence against women in the region. To the contrary, it has examined this on various occasions as a result of an interpretation of the provisions of the American Convention in relation to Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará,” establishing invaluable standards for State obligations in cases of gender-based violence, especially – and based on the matter which is the purpose of this opinion – on the “obligation of prevention” to which I will refer below. 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) 17. In two of its outstanding case on gender-based violence,36 the Inter-American Court has established important standards concerning compliance with the State obligations to respect and to ensure human rights in order to combat violence against women. Particularly, when analyzing the obligation to ensure rights such as to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, it has made a detailed examination of the State’s obligation of prevention, 37 emphasizing the criterion of the “two moments” in the obligation of prevention in order to determine the international responsibility of States. 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. 225. 32 That case relates to the alleged unlawful and arbitrary detention of Gladys Carol Espinoza Gonzáles, as well as the alleged rape and other acts that constituted torture that she was a victim of while in the custody of State agents. I/A Court HR, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 1. 33 I/A Court HR, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 287. 34 I/A Court HR, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 288. 35 I/A Court HR, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 229. 36 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. 37 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, paras. 249 to 286, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, paras. 133 to 158. 31 6