31. Regardless of the foregoing, the Court has also concluded in its analysis of the said “first moment” — in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico — that, in light of the pattern of violence against women, the absence of a general policy constitutes a violation of the general duty under the obligation of prevention.58 Meanwhile, in the case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, it recognized previous actions taken by the State in relation to the problem of the context. 59 I consider that these considerations should be taken into particular consideration in the analysis and conclusions of the case sub judice (which gives rise to this separate opinion), when examining the “first moment” of the State’s obligation of prevention, as will be seen in the following section. III. THE “OBLIGATION OF PREVENTION” IN THE CASE OF VELÁSQUEZ PAIZ ET AL. V. GUATEMALA (2015) 32. The facts of the case relate to the disappearance, abuse and death of Claudina Velásquez Paiz in 2005, as well as the failure of the State to act diligently and the inconsistencies in the subsequent investigation of the facts, a situation which took place in a “context” of an escalation of violence against women 60 that the State was already aware of and the Court had examined in case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, decided in 2014. 33. In general, it is worth mentioning that, as can be seen throughout the judgment, given that the facts of this specific case bear a sequential relationship to the facts of the case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, the Court’s considerations in that case were constantly cited in this judgment, especially with regard to the establishment of a “context” of an escalation of violence against women. 34. I consider that this “context” is of fundamental importance for the analysis of the State obligation of prevention, particularly when examining the “first moment”; in other words, the general obligation to prevent the disappearance and murder of women. That is why I consider it essential to emphasize the significance of the context of this case, and then to examine in greater detail the State’s duty to guarantee rights by means of the obligation of prevention, which will be examined using the criterion of the “two moments” of this obligation, already used by the Court in the two cases of violence against women highlighted in the preceding section. III.1 The context of violence against women in Guatemala 35. The context represents a useful and necessary tool for understanding the specific facts of the case and determining the responsibility of the State. It should be mentioned that, when establishing the context of this case, various aspects of the context found in the case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala were referred to as a result of the sequential relationship between the two cases.61 In this regard, the present judgment referred back to the context in which the facts of the case of Veliz Franco et al. occurred, indicating that, starting in December 2001, there was a “context of an escalation of homicidal violence Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 139. 58 I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 282. 59 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 139. 60 Paras. 45 to 48 of the judgment. 61 Paras. 45 and ff. 10