effective witness protection programs. They also explained that Jorge Velásquez had become a joint complainant in the proceedings and that “he had been treated improperly and with hostility by the prosecutors, who had re-victimized him, preventing him from having full access to exercise his right to justice.” They argued that there had been “zero” investigation during the first 72 hours and “it began months later, with statements being taken almost one year after,” due to the impetus and constant insistence of Mr. Velásquez. Therefore, they considered that the State had violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the next of kin of Claudina Velásquez. 139. In addition, the representatives argued that there are patterns of stereotyping in the evaluation of cases that should be investigated, and victims are blamed based on discriminatory criteria; this prevents criminal prosecution and encourages the repetition of killings and misogyny. All this violates the right to equality before the law contained in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. They asserted that the stigmatization of the presumed victim “did not allow a thorough investigation to be made” and gave rise to “complete impunity” in her case, in violation of the right to equality before the law and non-discrimination contained in Articles 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Articles 4, 5 and 11 of that Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudina Velásquez, as well as in relation to access to justice recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of her next of kin. They also indicated that, in this case, “the police made erroneous inferences” about the presumed victim, the value of her life, and the importance of investigating her case, based merely on her manner of dress, in violation of Claudina Velásquez’s right to freedom of expression contained in Article 13, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Lastly, they argued that, owing to the prejudices associated with the manner of dress and the place that the corpse was found, a “low-income neighborhood,” the investigation of the crime scene was conducted carelessly, in violation of the right to freedom of movement contained in Article 22, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudina Velásquez. 140. The State indicated that it had conducted the best investigation within the scope of its possibilities and available resources; that the Public Prosecution Service had not been inactive, and that the failure to identify the perpetrator was because the matter was “so complex.” It affirmed that many of the arguments presented concerning the supposed flaws in the preservation of the crime scene “are totally baseless” because it had been “fully documented” that the State had complied diligently with the procedures required by the said circumstances. In this regard, it defended itself based on two actions: (a) it provided information on the procedures conducted, and (b) it referred to the measures taken to rectify some of the irregularities in the investigation. It also asserted that, according to the standards established in the case of Veliz Franco, it had complied with the minimum criteria for an investigation of this type, because it had: (i) identified the victim; (ii) recovered and preserved evidentiary material; (iii) identified possible witnesses and obtained their statements; (iv) determined the manner, location, cause and time of death, and (v) distinguished that it was not a natural death, an accidental death or a suicide. It also denied that it had violated Articles 11,218 13219 and 22220 of Article 11 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. (2) No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. (3) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 219 Article 13 of the American Convention establishes: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.” 218 50