it is plain that her statements were made within the framework of her investigative functions and activities as a State agent and from the significant perspective that she had been present during the processing of the crime scene and witnessed the work of the members of the National Civil Police and the Public Prosecution Service. 180. The Court reiterates that a gender stereotype refers to a preconception of the respective attributes, conducts or characteristics, or roles that are or should be played by men and women,280 and that it is possible to associate the subordination of women to practices based on socially-dominant and socially-persistent gender stereotypes. In this regard, their conception and use becomes one of the causes and consequences of gender-based violence against women, conditions that are exacerbated when they are reflected, implicitly or explicitly, in policies and practices, and particularly in the reasoning and language of the State authorities. 281 181. Expert witnesses Christine Mary Chinkin282 and Paloma Soria Montañez283 asserted that the actions taken by the authorities in the investigations into the violent death of Claudina Velásquez were influenced by gender stereotypes because they considered that “her profile corresponded to that of a gang member or to that of a prostitute,” “whose death does not have to be investigated.” Expert witness Christine Mary Chinkin284 indicated that “the factors that contributed to this interpretation included that she had gone missing late at night, having been at a party, [her] clothes and accessories […], the smell of alcohol at the scene of the crime, the place where her body was found, and the fact that she was a woman.” She indicated that “[t]his application of stereotypes, which characterize women based on their clothes, imposes restraints on women – for example, on their freedom of movement, expression and association – by making them fear for their safety and lack confidence in the possibility of the authorities protecting them adequately,” and that “[t]he climate of impunity created by the inadequate investigations contributed to this.” Meanwhile, expert witness Paloma Soria Montañez 285 indicated that Claudina Velásquez was blamed for her death “because she was young, because her body was found in a low-income area, because of her manner of dress, and because she had a navel piercing.” 182. In this regard, Christine Mary Chinkin explained that, in this case, there was a negative difference in treatment based on a gender stereotype stemming from “the practice of the authorities of considering the victim as a person whose death – a gender-related murder – was not worth investigating.” Such adverse and negative stereotypes were based on prejudices that “prevent the full application of the fundamental principle of equality between women and men.” She asserted that their application “affects the right of women to an impartial and fair trial, because they impose obstacles that women must overcome and that men do not face.” Thus, “they deny women equality before the law and access to justice.” Therefore, “even if Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz had been a member of a gang or a prostitute or was dressed in a way that some considered inappropriate, […] the legal requirement of equality before the law remains exercise the same function in places where there are no officials of the Public Prosecution Service or police agents.” Article 307 (Forwarding of procedures) indicated that: “The procedures and the objects seized shall be forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service within three days, without prejudice to the provisions in the case of arrests.” 280 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401. 281 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401. In this regard, see mutatis mutandis, Opinion submitted by affidavit by Christiane Mary Chinkin dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6797 and 6798), and Opinion submitted by affidavit by Alberto Bovino dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6666 and 6667). 282 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Christiane Mary Chinkin dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6782 to 6802). 283 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Paloma Soria Montañez dated April 16, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6744 to 6781). 284 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Christiane Mary Chinkin dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6798 and 6799). 285 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Paloma Soria Montañez dated April 16, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6771). 65