4 20. The petitioners further maintain that it was not until July 8, 2003 that there was a search of the property where the vehicle that, according to the anonymous informant, allegedly had been used to move the body of the alleged victim was supposed to be found. Moreover, the petitioners report that said search was made at the wrong address, since the address given by the anonymous informant was 6ta th Calle 5-24 Colonia Monserrat en la zona 7 [6 Street 5-24 Colonia Monserrat in Zone 7] and the search th was carried out at 6 Calle 5-24 de la zona 3 [6 Street 5-24 of Zone 3] in Guatemala City. Consequently, the search turned up nothing. Furthermore, although the search report states that a woman was found at the property, it does not indicate whether interviews were conducted that were useful to the investigation. 21. The petitioners contend that the State has not taken the necessary measures to locate one of the main suspects, even though he has been named as a principal suspect. They contend that all the authorities did was to ask the suspect’s employer not to fire him from the Confederación Deportiva Autónoma de Guatemala [Autonomous Sporting Confederation of Guatemala] until the person responsible for the alleged victim’s death was identified. The petitioners contend that on February 28, 2002, a possible witness provided information to the Bureau of Criminal Investigations of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. That information included a description of the man who was with the victim on the day of her disappearance. 22. The petitioners also contend that the investigation into the case was needlessly delayed for nine months because of a competing jurisdiction dispute that began on March 11, 2002 and ended with a ruling from the Supreme Court on November 21, 2002, which declared that the court with jurisdiction in the matter was the First Criminal Court of First Instance of the Municipality of Mixco, which is why the case was referred to the jurisdiction of Mixco on December 11, 2002. 23. The petitioners also maintain that the investigative corps has endeavored to discredit the victim and her family; the case file shows that the authorities were more interested in investigating details about María Isabel Véliz Franco’s reputation than about investigating the events that led to her death. According to the information supplied by the petitioners, the Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a report on February 20, 2002, containing the “findings of the preliminaries of the investigation of María Isabel Véliz Franco,” in which pejorative comments against her are made. For example, it comments that the girl’s nickname was “La Loca” [the crazy one]. The petitioners maintain that the report concludes that the alleged victim was promiscuous, involved with gangs, frequented discotheques, had many boyfriends, dressed provocatively and took drugs. It also wrote that María Isabel dressed in a provocative manner, that her style of dress and clothing did not match her economic means and that “… admirers or clients have given her various gifts (which her mother knew), which leads one to suspect that, given María Isabel’s personality, both she and her mother were interested in obtaining some advantage from admirers…” The report also states that the victim’s mother was negligent in supervising her daughter. The petitioners also observe that the authorities have told Mrs. Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval de Véliz that her daughter was a “tart.” In short, the insults and humiliation, the petitioners allege, were done directly by the authorities who investigated the case; in the statements that María Isabel’s friends made, such comments were made at the prompting of the authorities. 24. The petitioners add that the killing of women in Guatemala and the impunity that attends it are not isolated incidents; instead they are an accurate and telling reflection of a pattern of gender violence. They state that gender discrimination has been an obstacle in the investigation of this case and that the facts recounted must be examined in the context of that pattern. To make their point, they observe that according to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, between 2001 and 2005 over 2,200 women and girls were murdered in Guatemala, and that figure is on the rise. They also point out that according to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, as of January 2005 only 9% of these cases had been investigated. Citing a report done by Amnesty International, the petitioners allege that as of June 2006, the more than 600 cases of femicide reported in 2006 had resulted in only two convictions. They mention the fact that Amnesty International maintained that from the attitude of the state agents toward these cases, one is left with the impression that a woman’s murder is unimportant and not worth a deep and thorough investigation. This is largely due to prejudices and rigid stereotypes about gender