- 81 - 217. In this case it has already been determined that the police actions were characterized by a lack of professionalism, discipline and adequate training (supra paras. 165 and ff.), so that the use of extremely sexist and stereotypical language in their treatment of the victims can be attributed, in part, to the failure of the State. However, this Court is concerned that the State’s response to the events that occurred in Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco on May 3 and 4, 2006, have focused on the physical violence suffered by the victims (supra paras. 126 to 147). Similarly, the SCJN highlighted that “the administrative and prosecutorial investigators did not address clarification” of the complaints of verbal and psychological violence. 315 218. As previously indicated, in order to ensure that women have real and effective equality and, particularly, bearing in mind the circumstances of this case, in order to guarantee them the possibility of taking part in public life in the same conditions as men, States must take active and positive measures to combat stereotypical and discriminatory attitudes such as those demonstrated by their police agents when repressing the protests of May 3 and 4, 2006. To the extent that those conducts were based on deeply-rooted socio-cultural patterns and prejudices, it is not sufficient that the State adopt a passive attitude or a mere sanction, and even this has not occurred in this case. The State must implement programs, policies and mechanisms to actively combat such prejudices and ensure that women have real equality. When the State fails to take concrete actions to eradicate them, it reinforces and institutionalizes them, which gives rise to, and reproduces, violence against women.316 219. In addition to the police violence based on stereotypical attitudes, the Court takes note of the response of the most senior government authorities of the state in which the events occurred, which was also based on a stereotypical attitude (supra paras. 73 and 74). The Court observes that, following the violence endured at the hands of members of the police forces, the victims were subjected to doubts about their credibility and public stigmatization as members of the guerrilla, by the Governor, the Secretary General of the government of the state of Mexico and the Commissioner of the state Security Agency. In this regard, the Court notes that is absolutely unacceptable that the first public reaction of the pertinent highest authorities was to call into question the credibility of the women who reported sexual violence, stigmatizing them and accusing them of being members of the guerrilla, and denying what had happened when not even an investigation had been opened. Part of the compliance by the State with its obligations to prevent and to punish violence against women, involves giving due attention and importance to any complaint of violence. The Court recognizes and rejects the gender-based stereotypes present in the response by the authorities, owing to which they denied the existence of rape due to the absence of physical evidence; blamed the victims for the failure to file complaints and for the absence of medical examinations, and undermined their credibility based on an inexistent supposed membership in an insurgent group. 317 The SCJN determined that “in the climate of violence, confrontation and excesses in which these events took place, and since the competent authorities made almost no effort to clarify them, it is not only credible that the violence was also verbal and moral, but also logical and explicable; and that is sufficient, in the instant case, for it to be considered that there were cases in which, added to, or independently of, the physical violence, there was also violence of this type.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30861). 315 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 173, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 236. 316 As in other cases, the authorities based their response on a gender-based stereotype according to which women who are detained or subjected to judicial proceedings would inherently lie and be unreliable, and this constituted a negative stereotype found in this case. Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 272. 317