18. This criterion has permitted the Court to make a detailed examination of the obligation of prevention – and, when appropriate – determine international responsibility – in cases in which the facts concerned the disappearance and subsequent death of the victims, as in the cases that preceded the one that has motivated this opinion: González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico (2009), and Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala (2014). 19. Regarding the obligation of prevention, in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico,38 the Court established that States “must adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women,” particularly with regard to “an adequate legal protection framework and its effective enforcement, and prevention policies and practices that permit effective actions when reports are received.”39 Also, regarding the characteristics of the prevention strategy, the Court has indicated that “this must be comprehensive; that is, it must prevent the risk factors and also reinforce the institutions so that they can provide an effective response to cases of violence against women,” underlining the obligation of States “to adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that specific women and girls may be victims of violence.”40 20. In the said case, the Court established, for the first time, that there were two key moments at which the obligation of prevention should be analyzed in relation to the disappearance and death of the victims, indicating that the first moment was “before the disappearance of the victims” and the second was “before their bodies were discovered.”41 21. When examining the “first moment” (before the victim’s disappearance), the InterAmerican Court considered that “the failure to prevent the disappearance d[id] not per se result in the State’s international responsibility because, even though the State was aware of the situation of risk for women [particularly] in Ciudad Juárez,” – given that a context of violence against women had been proved – it was not aware of a real and imminent danger for the victims in this case. It also indicated that, “[e]ven though the context of this case and the State’s international obligations impose[d] on it a greater responsibility with regard to the protection of women in Ciudad Juárez, […] these factors d[id] not impose unlimited responsibility for any unlawful act against [them].” Consequently, it indicated that the Court could “only note that the absence of a general policy” with regard to the pattern of violence against women, had constituted “a general failure […] to comply with its obligation of prevention.”42 This case related to the disappearance and subsequent death of the adolescents, Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, whose bodies were found in a field of cotton in Ciudad Juárez on November 6, 2001, as well as the lack of due diligence on the part of the authorities. 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. 39 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. 258 and, 108. 40 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; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, paras. 136 and 108. 41 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. 281 and ff; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, paras. 138 and 110 of the judgment. 42 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. 282. 38 7