194. Added to this, the INACIF Forensic Psychiatric Report of November 24, 2008, determined, as regards the appraisal of the crime scene and considerations on the perpetrator, that: [A]t least two individuals, or possibly more, took part [and …] at least three different sites where the facts occurred can be established: a site where the victim was waylaid, a site where the assault took place, and a site where the victim was abandoned. This suggests that, although the act could have started out circumstantially, it continued methodically, without malice, and with an outcome that would suggest that, the individual who executed the act was knowledgeable about the use of firearms and had experience in committing this type of act. It is evident that she was subjected to some kind of manipulation while undressed, and that someone else dressed her.295 195. Added to this, on January 20, 2009, the forensic physician who examined the body at the site where it was found declared that “her brassiere was on top of her clothes, her blouse and sweater were on back to front, her the belt was unbuckled, and the zipper of her jeans undone,” also, he could infer “that she had been raped and that it is possible that the victim knew her assailant.”296 196. In conclusion, the authorities in charge of the investigation were aware that there were indications of possible gender-based violence against Claudina Velásquez from the initial moments of the investigation. Additionally, these indications were mentioned repeatedly during the investigation. Nevertheless, owing to the prejudices and discriminatory statements based on gender stereotyping of the State agents who intervened in the investigation, they failed to conduct the investigation from a gender perspective and Claudina Velásquez’s death was investigated as just another murder.297 197. In the Court’s opinion, there are three essential aspects of the absence of a gender approach in the criminal investigation. First, the fact that the circumstances prior to her death were rendered invisible, while the evidence indicated the existence of an act of violence prior to her death. Second, the way in which death occurred was rendered invisible, even though the evidence suggested the perpetration of an act of violence after her death. Third, the possible sexual violence was rendered invisible. These three aspects reveal a possible repetition of the violence inflicted on the victim while she was missing, which was in addition to the fact of her murder. 198. Based on the foregoing, the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate ex officio the death of Claudina Velásquez with a gender approach and as a possible expression of gender-based violence. To the contrary, the investigation focused merely on the victim’s death and continued as a case of murder without taking into account the standards established for this type of case. Thus, evidence such as the victim’s clothes was not secured, and the proper chain of custody was not respected; the physical evidence was not conserved; the relevant examinations and tests were not performed; appropriate lines of investigation were not followed, and other possible lines of investigation into the circumstances of the case and the identification of the perpetrators were closed. Accordingly, the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate with due diligence. 199. In consequence, the Court finds that the investigation into the death of Claudina Velásquez was not conducted with a gender perspective in keeping with the special obligations imposed by the Convention of Belém do Pará. As in the case of Veliz Franco et al., the Court Cf. Psychiatric profile of victim, perpetrator and crime scene in the case of the violent death of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz (evidence file, folio 4876). 296 Cf. Statement made on January 20, 2009, by the forensic physician who was present at the site where Claudina Velásquez’s body was found, before the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 2880). 297 Cf. Opinion submitted by affidavit by Christiane Mary Chinkin dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6796 and 6797); Opinion submitted by affidavit by Claudia González Orellana dated March 19, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6813), and Opinion submitted by affidavit by Alberto Bovino dated April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6674). 295 69