and the State must exercise due diligence in the investigation.”286 Similarly, Paloma Soria Montañez indicated that “being the victim of a violent death […] places [women] into a derogatory and demeaning category based on gender stereotyping.” She explained that “this meant that the case was not investigated diligently, and appropriate lines of investigation were not followed up on.” Indeed, “the authorities blamed Claudina Isabel and, by their actions, suggested that she had deserved her fate. All this means that, up until today, the violent acts that took place […] remain unpunished.”287 183. The Court recognizes, reveals and rejects the gender stereotype by which, in cases of violence against women, the victims are presumed to fit the profile of a gang member and/or prostitute and/or “loose woman,” and are not considered sufficiently important to be investigated, while also making the woman responsible for or deserving of being attacked. In this regard, it rejects any State practice which justifies violence against women and blames them for this, because appraisals of this nature reveal discretional and discriminatory criteria based on the origin, condition and/or conduct of the victim merely for being a woman. Consequently, the Court considers that such gender stereotypes are incompatible with international human rights law and measures should be taken to eliminate them whenever they surface. 184. The Court notes that, in this case, these stereotypes were repeated by different State agents during the investigation, as indicated in the following paragraphs. 185. In his Report on verification of violations of the obligation to investigate in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz,288 the Guatemalan Ombudsman indicated that “the time spent at the crime scene appears too short to show that it was processed with the necessary thoroughness to achieve positive results for the investigation.” This situation was “corroborated by Agent Carolina Elizabeth Ruiz.” In this way, “[t]he initial indifference to conducting a diligent investigation of the case is explained by the suppose confusion about the identity of the victim” because, “owing to her manner of dress and the place of the crime, it was considered to be a crime that was not worth investigating.” In addition, he noted that “[t]he lack of administrative controls over the activity of the prosecutor influenced the fact that there was no real concern to conduct an adequate investigation, which was a generalized pattern in cases of murder, especially when the victim was stereotyped as marginal.” 186. Added to the above, the Court notes that the report of August 22, 2005, prepared by the investigator of the Unit to Combat Murders of Women of the PNC Criminal Investigation Service (supra nota 278) indicated that the motive for the death was “possibly a crime of passion under the effects of alcohol resulting in someone’s death.” 187. On this point, expert witness Alberto Bovino289 affirmed that “the concept of ‘a crime of passion’ is part of a stereotype that justifies violence against women. The term ‘passion’ places the accent on justifying the conduct of the perpetrator.” For example, “‘he killed her because he was jealous,’ ‘in an attack of fury,’ [are] expressions that encourage blaming the woman who suffered the violence. The victim is blamed and the violent action of the attacker is supported.” In this regard, he indicated that, in the case of Claudina Velásquez’s death, “the motive was prejudged, mitigating the responsibility of the possible author, and minimizing the victim’s need for protection.” In addition, he determined that in circumstances such as those of this case, Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Christiane Mary Chinkin dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6798 and 6799). 287 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Paloma Soria Montañez dated April 16, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6771). 288 Cf. The Ombudsman’s Report on verification of violations of the obligation to investigate in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz (evidence file, folios 104, 105 and 114). 289 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Alberto Bovino dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6670 and 6674). 286 66