matter,98 that could prevent the risk faced by Guatemalan women and girls given the escalation in the murder of women and the brutal circumstances in which it is perpetrated. 56. It is a factor of special concern that, as a result of the failure to adopt effective and sufficient measures to prevent violence against Guatemalan women, they continue to face a constant situation of danger, where the guarantee of their rights is nullified, as well as the rights of their next of kin, as in the instant case. 57. Consequently, the undersigned finds it pertinent to indicate that, given the context of violence faced by women in Guatemala and, consequently, the enhanced obligation of the State to prevent this situation, the Court should have declared the international responsibility of the State for failing to comply with its general obligation of prevention when examining the “first moment” of the measures adopted by the State. This is because this failure originated the absence of specific prevention or the “second moment” of prevention; in other words, when the State was confronted by the disappearance of Claudina Velásquez; because, as there was no mechanism, instrument or practice for the immediate search for missing women (which should have existed owing to the State’s “general obligation of prevention”), this evidently influenced the actions of the State when it was informed that the victim was missing. 58. On this point, I consider that States must pay special attention to the general obligation of prevention in accordance with the requirements for this obligations established by the American Convention on Human Rights and the “Convention of Belém do Pará.” Thus, it is not sufficient for the State to take just any measure or action to comply with the obligation of prevention; rather, it must ensure that such measure or action effectively has the purpose of preventing, as of the first moment and in general, the specific danger that women and girls in the region may face. In sum, this represents a fundamental question to which the States should give special consideration in contexts of violence against women – as seen in the instant case – because the eradication of femicide and, in general, of violence against women, a social burden that regrettably continues to afflict the region, depends to a large extent on compliance with the said “obligation of prevention. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 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, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. 98 16