23 64. In the case of the amici curiae, these were presented on May 30, 2013, within the time frame established in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, but in a language other than the official language in this case, the translation into Spanish of the brief of Christine M. Venter, Ana-Paolo Calpado and Daniella Palmiotto was not provided, so that it is declared inadmissible.59 As regards the brief of Sorina Macricini, Cristian González Chacó and Bruno Rodríguez Reveggio, the translation of the complete amicus curiae was sent on June 10, 2013; in other words, 11 days after the time frame for its presentation had expired (supra para. 12). In this regard, the State asked the Court not to admit the brief, and argued that it disagreed with the opinion given in the brief. Based on Article 44(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishing that amicus curiae briefs may be submitted “at any time during contentious proceedings for up to 15 days following the public hearing,” and given that, in the instant case, the complete translation of the amicus curiae was presented outside the time frame indicated in this article, the Court will only admit the part of the brief that was presented in Spanish within the time frame, and does not admit the Spanish translation of the remaining part, because its presentation was time-barred. VII FACTS A. Context A.1) Introduction 65. As on previous occasions, the Court recalls that, in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, it “has examined diverse historical, social and political contexts which situate the facts that are alleged to have violated [human rights] within the framework of the specific circumstances in which they occurred.”60 Furthermore, in some cases, the context made it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations61 and/or were taken into account to determine the international responsibility of the State.62 Thus, with regard to the State’s alleged failure to comply with its obligation to prevent what happened to María Isabel Veliz Franco (supra para. 7), taking into consideration contextual information – together with the pertinent factual elements of the case – will help clarify the degree to which the State could be required to consider the existence of a risk for the child, and to act in consequence. In addition, this aspect, together with the actions of the State in the investigation of the facts, will allow a better understanding of the alleged violations and the relevance of certain measures of reparation. 66. The Commission and the representative asserted that this case was inserted in a context of high levels of violence against women and girls in Guatemala, as well as of the general impunity of such acts. The State indicated that it was “false” that it had “ignore[d]” the “growing trend of violence against women in the region”; rather, it had “implemented measures […] to prevent, punish and eradicate this.” It affirmed that there was “no evidence […] confirm[ing] the connection” of this case “to a supposed systematic pattern of deaths of women.” It also maintained that “not all violent deaths of women are genderbased.” It asserted that the representative and the Commission “want” “to insert this case [into] a supposed context of violence against women within the socio-cultural patterns of the Guatemalan population”; “however, this has never been the result of a public policy of the State and, particularly, [of its] tolerance or acquiescence.” 67. Based on above, the Court will now refer to aspects relating to the contextual evidence and, then, to the situation in Guatemala with regard to gender-based murders, 59 Cf. Case of Artavia et al. ("In vitro fertilization"), supra, para. 15. 60 Cf. Case of J., supra, para. 53. 61 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 61 and 62, and Case of J., supra, para. 53. 62 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra, paras. 53 and 63, and Case of J., supra, para. 53.