97 itself, discrimination against women in access to justice. 318. The Court also notes that, in the case of I.V., multiple factors of discrimination in access to justice converged intersectionally, associated with her condition as a woman, her socio-economic situation, and her condition as a refugee. 319. Indeed, in this case, this discrimination also resulted in a violation of access to justice based on I.V.’s socio-economic situation, because the changes in jurisdiction for hearing the case at the stage of the second and third criminal trial, created a geographical obstacle to the accessibility of the court. This involved the high socio-economic cost of having to travel a great distance – and even having to travel approximately 255 km. in the case of the proceedings before the Sica Sica Court – and having to pay for the transportation, accommodation and other costs of the journey not only for herself but also for the witnesses, which evidently resulted in an unjustified impairment of her right to obtain justice. This constituted discrimination in access to justice based on socio-economic status pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 320. In addition, the Court notes that the fact that she had refugee status, in other words, that she was a person who had been forced to flee from her country of origin and seek international protection because she had a well-founded fear of persecution, meant that I.V. and her husband again felt unprotected in their search to obtain justice because, as a result of their claims, they were subject to different types of pressure, including inquiries about the terms and conditions of their residence in Bolivia.394 321. The discrimination experienced by I.V. in access to justice was caused not only by numerous factors, but also arose from a specific form of discrimination resulted from the intersection of these factors; that is, if any of these factors had not existed, the discrimination would have been of a different nature.395 B.4 Conclusion 322. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to ensure, without discrimination, the right of access to justice pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In addition, the State of Bolivia failed to comply with its positive obligation to take measures to prevent and to remedy discriminatory situations in violation of Article 7(b), (c), (f) and (g) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 323. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 25(2)(a) of the American Convention, the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a ruling on its alleged violation. Guatemala, supra, para. 176. During the domestic oral trial, when asked if he had felt pressured during the investigation, J.E. stated that “[f]rom the start of the investigation, I believe this was so; I was summoned by the Immigration Directorate to inquire about my presence […]. [After some inquiries had been made], the report indicated by the representative of the Directorate […] indicated that they were investigating my legal residence status at the request of Dr. Edgar Torrico. During the proceedings, my wife received telephone calls and threats, when the preceding trial ended, we were photographed by someone […], who was a member of the police force […].” Statement made by J.E. on July 27, 2004, according to the record of the oral hearing issued by the Copacabana Trial Court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(c)) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4757). See also, the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW), Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 73 of the Convention, List of issues to be taken up in connection with the consideration of the initial report of Bolivia, CMW/C/BOL/Q/1, November 30, 2007, para. 11 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 40 to the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence, folios 2716 to 2720). 394 395 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 290.