the cultural values of the indigenous peoples, violence against women, the Mayan legal system, and the role of the indigenous authorities. 118. In this regard, the Court notes that, at the time, various reports of national and international agencies and organizations criticized the effectiveness of these State measures and institutions: a) In February 2005, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences indicated that “[t]here are a number of parallel institutions for the advancement of women with overlapping mandates reflecting the fragmented and divided nature of Guatemalan society.” Also, that “CONAPREVI ha[d] not received the necessary political and budgetary support needed for the fulfilment of its tasks to date.”196 b) In February 2006, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights asserted in his report on the situation of human rights in Guatemala that, “[i]n addition to the [Special Prosecutor’s Office for Women’s Affairs] there exist other institutions, such as the Presidential Office for Women, the Office for the Defence of Indigenous Women’s Rights, the offices of the PNC on gender equity and victim support, and the recently established Women’s Homicide Unit.” However, he also indicated that some of the main problems related to “[p]oor institutional coordination and the lack of resources to implement its programmes, such as the National Plan for the Prevention and Eradication of Domestic Violence and Violence against Women (PLANOVI 2004-2014).”197 c) In May 2006, the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) indicated, with regard to Guatemala, that, “[w]hile noting the steps taken by the State party to strengthen the national mechanisms for the advancement of women, […it] expresses its concern that the national machinery does not have enough human and financial resources to carry out its mandate […]. It is also concerned about the limited capacity of the Presidential Secretariat to undertaken effective coordination and cooperation with the legislative and the judicial branches.” The Committee “urge[d] the State party to accord priority attention to the adoption of a comprehensive and integrated approach to address violence against women and girls, […] and to enact the pending reforms to the Criminal Code to criminalize domestic violence and to allocate the necessary resources to implement [PLANOVI] 2004-2014.”198 d) In September 2004, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women of the Inter-American Commission observed that the State had taken important steps to improve the institutional framework for overcoming the epidemic of violence against women. However, she underlined that “these institutions have scant resources with which to carry out their mission and lack sorely needed inter-institutional coordination.”199 e) In June 2005, the Guatemalan Ombudsman indicated that the Government’s efforts to address violence against women up until then had “achieve[d] measures such as the Cf. Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk, Mission to Guatemala, E/CN.4/2005/72/Add.3, February 10, 2005, paras. 49 and 53. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/108/17/PDF/G0510817.pdf?OpenElement. 197 Cf. Report of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Guatemala, E/CN.4/2006/10/Add.1, February 1, 2006, para. 22. Available at: https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/105/38/PDF/G0610538.pdf?OpenElement. 198 Cf. CEDAW Concluding comments: Guatemala, CEDAW/C/GUA/CO/6, June 2, 2006, paras. 17 and 26 (evidence file, folio 1413). 199 Cf. 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. 13. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2004/20.04.htm. 196 43