7. Based on the competence that Article 12 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” grants the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to examine violations of Article 7 of this regional instrument,8 the Inter-American Court has examined the phenomenon of violence against women in different circumstances,9 placing special emphasis on the State’s obligation to “condemn all forms of violence against women [and to adopt], by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence,”10 and this, in addition, to the specific measures indicated in that provision – some of which have been examined by the Inter-American Court in its case law. 8. The interpretation and application of the provisions of the “Convention of Belém do Pará” first took place in 2006, in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru.11 Based on the facts of the case, the Court declared the violation of Article 7(b) of this instrument, concerning the State obligation “to apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women.” In that case, the Court indicated that the State obligation to investigate the facts that had occurred meant that the State should “take into consideration the seriousness of the facts that constitute violence against women, taking into account the obligations imposed on it by the treaties it has ratified on this matter.”12 Consequently, the Inter-American Court declared the violation of Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belem do Pará” together with the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention) because the domestic proceedings instituted in that case did not constitute “effective remedies to guarantee a true access to justice by the victims, within a reasonable time, that [would] include the elucidation of the facts, the investigation and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible and the reparation of the violations to the right to life and integrity.”13 9. In 2009, in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, the Court again had the occasion to examine facts that involved obligations under the “Convention of Belém 8 In the instant case, the State questioned the Court’s competence ratione materiae. Based on its precedents, the Inter-American Court rejected this preliminary objection in the understanding that “it seems clear that the literal meaning of Article 12 of the Belém do Pará Convention grants competence to the Court, by not excluding from its application any of the norms and procedural requirements for individual communications”, and also, that in other contentious cases against Guatemala, the Court had declared that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and found no evidence to change its case law. See paras. 16 to 19 of the judgment. 9 I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205; Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010 Series C No. 215; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289. 10 Article 7 of the “Convention of Belém do Pará,” see supra nota 6. 11 I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. 12 I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 394. 13 I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 408. 3