24 98. Using these parameters as a frame of reference, the Commission will now consider whether the above-described facts, given the failure to prevent them and provide a response, engage the State’s international responsibility. The petitioners hold that the State of Guatemala has committed a series of irregularities: First, by telling the parents of the alleged victim that they had to wait at least 24 hours before filing a report, and second by failing to meet their obligation to ensure a meaningful, effective investigation to identify those responsible for her murder. For its part, the State says that in this case the investigation procedures necessary to find the culprits are still under way. 99. Following the first attempt by Claudina Isabel Velásquez’s parents to report the disappearance to the police, there is nothing in the judicial record to suggest that the State took effective steps to find her alive. For example, as the section on proven facts states, a police patrol car arrived at the main gate to the Panorama zone, where Claudina’s parents were waiting for them, at around 3:00 a.m. Although they then followed the patrol car to the Pinares entrance, the officers in the patrol car said that there was nothing more that they could do and they left to continue their patrol. The patrol car accompanied them through the streets as far as the Pinares entrance, where the officers told them that they had to “wait at least 24 hours.”87 In other words, they not only did not permit the parents to formally lodge a complaint, but failed to take seriously the complaint and their concern about their daughter’s disappearance, despite a well-known context of violence against women and girls in Guatemala. 100. Available at Inter-American Court has held that in cases of violence against women, an obligation of strict due diligence arises with regard to reports of missing women, with respect to search operations during the first hours and days.88 This obligation of means is a more rigorous one and thus demands an immediate and effective response on the part of authorities when complaints of disappearances are filed, to adequately prevent the violence against women. 89 This includes an exhaustive search. It also requires that the officials in charge of receiving the missing persons reports have the capacity and the sensitivity to understand the seriousness of the phenomenon of violence against women and the willingness to act immediately.90 Above all, it is essential that police authorities, prosecutors and judicial officials take prompt action by ordering, without delay, the necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victims or the place where they may have been retained.91 Adequate procedures should be in place for reporting disappearances, which should result in an immediate effective investigation. The authorities should presume that the disappeared person has been deprived of liberty and is still alive until there is no longer any uncertainty about her fate.92 87 Appendix 31. Statement by Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal of September 22, 2005 to the Public Prosecution Service. Copy of judicial record presented by the petitioners on May 31, 2012. 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 283. 89 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 285. 90 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 285. 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 283. 92 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 283.