22. In relation to the “second moment” (before the discovery of the bodies), the Court decided to make a more detailed examination, establishing that, since the State was aware that “there was a real and imminent risk that the victims would be sexually abused, subjected to ill-treatment and killed,” “an obligation of strict due diligence ar[ose] with regard to reports of missing women,” which required “that exhaustive search activities be conducted.” 43 23. In this regard, the Court determined that owing to the State’s lack of due diligence to prevent the deaths of the victims at that moment, as well as State’s failure to adopt the necessary laws or measures “that would have allowed the authorities to provide an immediate and effective response to the reports of disappearance,”44 it had violated the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty, in relation to the general obligation to ensure rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions contained in Article 2 thereof, as well as the obligations established in Articles 7(b) and 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of [the victims].45 24. Subsequently, in the case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala,46 the Court also examined the obligations of guarantee, considering the obligation of prevention as an expression of these obligations that “encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure the safeguard of human rights, and that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act […]”; 47 reconfirming this in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico48 in relation to the characteristics of the strategy for the obligation of prevention. 25. Furthermore, based on the criterion of the “two moments” used in González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico,49 the Court determined in the “first moment” — as it had already done in the above case – that the failure to prevent the disappearance “d[id] not per se result in the State’s international responsibility” because, although it was aware of the increase of violent acts against women and girls, it was not aware of a real and immediate risk for the victim in that case and, also – contrary to its case law precedent – it recognized State actions (taken prior to the date of the facts) with regard to the problem of violence against women,50 considering the analysis of that moment concluded. 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. 283. 44 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. 284 and 285. 45 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. 284 and 286. 46 This case relates to the disappearance of subsequent death of María Isabel Veliz, as well as the absence of an effective response by the State when she was reported missing, and the subsequent deficiencies in the investigation of the facts. 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. 47 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. 135. See, similarly: 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. 252 and 107. 48 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. 136, and 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. 49 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. 138, and 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. 50 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. 139. 43 8