high (supra para. 45). It is plain that, at the time of the facts of this case, August 2005, the State had already been alerted to this situation by both national and international agencies, as well as civil society organizations, in documents that date from 2001 to February 2005.186 It is worth emphasizing that, by January 2003, the Ombudsman’s Office, a State organ, had already linked the existence of violent acts committed against women in 2001 to “discrimination, with cultural roots in Guatemalan society,” and indicated that this violence was inserted in a context of discrimination against women in Guatemala in different spheres. 187 Moreover, as already indicated, the level of violence against women has increased since then, as have the acts of cruelty inflicted on the bodies of many of the victims. Added to this, the killings of women in Guatemala take place in a context of different forms of violence against them, such as intrafamilial and domestic violence, rape and violation, harassment, exploitation, and other forms of sexual violence (supra para. 48). 112. That said, in its judgment in the case of Veliz Franco et al., the Court stressed that, before188 and after the facts of that case, which took place in 2001, the State had taken various measures aimed at addressing discrimination and violence against women. In this regard, it underlined the Law for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Domestic Violence of November 28, 1996, and the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “Law against Femicide”) enacted in 2008.189 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 75, 76 and 78 to 80, citing, inter alia: (i) (footnote 88) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala”, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. 111, Doc. Rev., April 6, 2001, Chapter XIII, para. 41. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Guate01eng/chap.13.htm; (ii) (footnote 89) The Guatemalan Ombudsman, “Informe Anual Circunstanciado 2001,” Guatemala, January 2002, pp. 44 to 46; (iii) (footnote 89) Amnesty International, “Informe de crímenes contra mujeres in Guatemala,” August 2004, pp. 11 and 13; (iv) (footnote 75) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Press Release 20/04, “The IACHR Special Rapporteur evaluates the effectiveness of the right of women in Guatemala to live free from violence and discrimination,” September 18, 2004, para. 7; (v) (footnotes 85 and 86) Amnesty International, ““Guatemala. No protection, no justice: killings of women,” June 2005, p. 8, and (vi) (footnote 74) United Nations Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights, sixty-first session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk. Mission to Guatemala. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/72/Add.3, February 10, 2005, para. 28. The report of the Inter-American Commission of April 2001 states that, at that time, violence against women was “a serious problem in the country,” and that “although [at that time it was] difficult to estimate the depth and breadth of the problem with precision, it [was] reported that violence based on gender [was] a leading cause of death and disability among women between 15 and 44 years of age.” The State indicated that the “statistics may be correct.” Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 79. 187 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 80, citing, the Guatemalan Ombudsman, “Report Anual Circunstanciado 2001”, Guatemala, January 2002, pp. 44 to 46. This documents indicates that discrimination had “historically […] excluded [women] from the enjoyment of fundamental rights and, therefore, they are victims of abuse, ill-treatment and violence.” Similarly, in a document with data from 2000 to 2003, Amnesty International, considered “the patriarchal culture as a specific cause [of the] phenomenon [of violence]” in Guatemala, explaining that “[t]he patriarchal system constructed under a pattern of a mainly masculine exercise of power and domination easily places women in a situation of vulnerability.” Amnesty International, “Informe de crímenes contra mujeres in Guatemala”, August 2004, pp. 11 and 13. 188 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 82 and footnote 93. The Court noted that, prior to December 2001, the State had taken steps related to the problem of violence against women. In 1996, the Law to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Domestic Violence was enacted, Decree No. 97-1996, November 28, 1996, Guatemala. In 2000 and 2001, this was supplemented by regulations and by the creation of Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI). In 2000, the Presidential Secretariat for Women (SEPREM) was created and, over the period 2001-2006, the National Policy for the Promotion and Development of Guatemalan Women was established, together with its Equal Opportunities Plan. Also, the Law on the Comprehensive Promotion and Dignification of Women was enacted in March 1999 and, in 2001, the Social Development Law was promulgated, by means of congressional Decrees No. 7-99 and No. 42-2001, respectively. In its article 16, the latter law establishes that “social development” and “population” policies shall include measures and actions aimed, inter alia, at punishing and eradicating any kind of individual or collective violence, abuse and discrimination against women, in observance of the international conventions and treaties ratified by Guatemala. Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI), “PLANOVI 2004-2014: National Plan for the Prevention and Eradication of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women.” 189 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 82. 186 40