37 145. In a hearing on the case before the IACHR, the State held that among the procedures carried out at the scene of the crime, given the death of the alleged victim, photographs were taken and a planimetric diagram was drawn of the exact address where the body was found. The state said that the fingerprints were not taken at the scene of the crime so as not to contaminate the evidence, owing to the fact that the medical examiner at the scene said that the fingernails had to be scraped for any possible clues. It was determined that the cause of death was a perforating wound to the head caused by a firearm projectile and cerebral hemorrhage. The State also indicated that the Public Prosecution Service has taken a number of procedural steps, including taking statements from, visiting, and interviewing witnesses; raids and confiscation of objects; the exhumation of a corpse; genetic profile comparisons of the semen samples found on the alleged victim’s body with nine persons, requests for telephone records, requests for ne exeat orders, and requests for assistance to the FBI in the USA to obtain DNA samples from a suspects who was in detention in that country, among other measures.166 146. According to the State, the report of Precinct 142 of National Civil Police District 14, indicated that there was no record of any call reporting a rape made from Colonia Roosevelt, Zone 11 at 2:12 a.m. on August 13, 2005. The petitioners provided a copy of it and said that they obtained it as a result of an institutional inquiry ordered by the then-Minister of the Interior, Adela Torre.167 147. While the State has taken and continues to take measures, it has not complied with its obligation to act with due diligence to identify the persons responsible for the disappearance and murder of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz. Thus, no one has been made to answer for this act of violence, which has the effect of creating a climate conducive to chronic recidivism of acts of violence against women.168 148. The IACHR has singled out the investigation as the critical phase in cases involving violence against women and has written that the “importance of due investigation cannot be overestimated, as deficiencies often prevent and/or obstruct further efforts to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible,” which is precisely what happened in the instant case.169 Therefore, the Commission observes that in this case the State failed to meet its obligation to investigate the violations of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz’s human rights with the requisite diligence. 149. The IACHR also notes that the continual reassignment of the case to different prosecutors interrupted and, therefore, delayed its investigation, with the result that procedures were not carried in a timely manner or were not considered by the new prosecutors. This situation was documented by the Ombudsman’s Office, which mentioned that the case passed through the hands of several different prosecutors and assistant prosecutors at Prosecution Unit 10, Prosecution Unit 14, and the Section Prosecutor’s Office, with each transfer entailing an interruption in the investigation, not to mention that many procedures were not carried out in a timely manner or were ignored by the 166 IACHR, Record of Hearing No. 30, Case 12.777, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, March 27, 2012. 167 IACHR, Record of Hearing No. 30, Case 12.777, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, March 27, 2012. 168 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. 454. I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 176, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, par. 173. 169 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007.