83 of January 3, 2003; March 1, 2004 and May 29, 2004 (supra para. 223, 254 and 263) and none of them mentioned the publications put forward by the representatives. It was during the public hearing that the representatives referred to this fact, classifying it as "attacks incontext". No evidence proving such publications was tendered together with the application. Therefore, such alleged facts do not form part of the litigation of the case at hand. 295. The Court deems it is necessary to clarify that not all human right violation committed against a woman implies necessarily a violation of the provisions established in the Convention of Belem do Pará. Even though female reporters have been attacked in the facts of this case, in all the situations, they were attacked together with their male colleagues. The representatives have neither demonstrated in what way the attacks were “especially address[ed] to women” nor have they explained the reasons why women turned into a special target “[due to their] gender”. What it has been demonstrated in this case is that the alleged victims had to face risky situations and on several occassions, they were physically and verbally attacked by private individuals, because of their jobs at the television station Globovisión and not because of other personal condition (supra para. 143, 150, 151 and 157 to 161). Hence, it has not been proven that the facts were based on the gender or sex of the alleged victims. 296. Furthermore, the Court considers that the representatives did not specify the reasons for and the way in which the State committed a “planned or directed” action towards the alleged female victims and they neither explained to what extent the proven facts in which they were impaired “were aggravated due to the condition of being a woman”. The representatives also failed to specify which facts and in which way those facts represent attacks that “disproportionately affected women”. They neither established the grounds of the allegations as to the existence of actions that, under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention of Belem do Pará, may be conceived as “violence against woman” nor which “appropriate measures” would be that, pursuant to Article 7(b) therein, the State failed to adopt in this case “to justify or abolish laws and rules in force or to modify judicial or customary laws that support the persistence or the tolerance of violence against woman”. Finally, the Court deems it is not appropriate to analyze the facts of the case at hand according to the referred provisions of the Convention of Belém do Pará. C) Investigations into the facts 297. The Court shall refer in this section to one of the arguments put forward by the Commission and the representatives in order to hold the State responsible for the acts committed by third parties, in relation to the fact that the State did not effectively investigate the incidents nor did it identify, prosecute and punish the responsible. 298. The general obligation to guarantee the human rights recognized in the Convention, enshrined in Article 1(1) therein, when combined with the specific rights of the Convention, can be fulfilled in several ways, depending on the right that the State must guarantee and the particular circumstances of the case284. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine whether, in this case and in the context in which the incidents occurred, the general obligation to guarantee rights bound the State to comply with the obligation to effectively investigate the alleged facts, as a means to guarantee the right to freedom of expression and humane integrity and, in turn, prevent said facts from happening again. The obligation 284 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 97; Case of García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador, supra note 48. para 98.