253. Nevertheless, and has this Court has indicated (supra para. 49), the facts of this case took place in a context in which the levels of impunity of violent acts against women remained high in Guatemala. In this regard, the representatives mentioned that the Guatemalan system of justice continued to suffer from serious structural problems that hindered the effective investigation of acts of violence against women. On this points, expert witness Karen Musalo indicated the need to implement the following measures immediately: 332 (a) improve investigations;333 (b) create specialized courts;334 (c) train, monitor and discipline public officials; (d) allocate adequate funds for these activities, and (e) collect reliable data. 254. In this regard, the Court notes, first, that in the case of Veliz Franco et al., it ordered the State to draw up a scheduled plan to reinforce the National Institute of Forensic Science (INACIF). In that case, the Court established that the satisfactory operation of that entity was important to ensure that cases of attacks on women could be investigated properly. Also, it found that verified data from 2012 indicated the need for INACIF to be allocated increased resources, and this had also been indicated by the entity’s authorities in 2010.335 In this case, and as in the case of Veliz Franco et al., the State has not provided the Court with information showing that this situation has changed. 336 Therefore, the Court finds it pertinent to again order that, within a reasonable time, the State draw up a scheduled plan to reinforce the National Institute of Forensic Science (INACIF) that includes an adequate allocation of resources to expand its activities over national territory and fulfill its mandate. 255. Second, in the case of Veliz Franco et al., the Court determined that article 15 of the 2008 Law against Femicide established the “creation of specialized jurisdictional organs.” Also, its article 14 established that “the Public Prosecution Service shall create the Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Life and Physical Integrity of Women, specializing in the investigation of the crimes defined by [the said] law, with the budgetary, physical, material, scientific and human resources that allow it to fulfill its mandate.” Moreover, articles 22 and 23 of this law established a period of 12 months for “creating” “the specialized jurisdictional organs referred to in article 15 […] throughout the Republic,” as well as “[the] prosecutor’s office referred to in article 14.”337 256. In the case of Veliz Franco et al., the State reported that “the Guatemalan Supreme Court of Justice, in decision 1-2010” had approved the creation of specialized courts in some of Cf. Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6662 and 6663). She indicated the need to “improve investigation of the crime scene, chain of custody controls, training and coordination of police, investigators, prosecutors and judicial officials; develop systems that allow the authorities to respond more promptly and effectively to crimes against women; avoid contamination of important evidence, and facilitate the necessary follow-up. This also includes the establishment of laboratories for forensic crimes and programs to train forensic experts in collecting evidence in cases of femicide and other gender-related criminal cases and in collecting, processing and preserving DNA evidence to facilitate the identification and prosecution of perpetrators, and in preserving evidence for the future if necessary. In addition, this would include the adoption of relevant protocols such as the creation of a protocol to differentiate between femicide and the murder of women that does not meet the definition of femicide.” Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6662). 334 She indicated the need to “provide adequate funding and other resources required to bring into operation the specialized courts for crimes against women and femicide, authorized by the 2008 Law. This would include the assessment of whether the number and distribution of the specialized courts was sufficient and whether or not the creation of additional courts should be authorized.” Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6662). 335 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 267 and 268. 336 Regarding the reinforcement of the INACIF, in its final written arguments the State merely referred to the existence of a postgraduate program for personnel of this entity, together with other agents of justice and State institutions, as well as “a coordinated effort among the three branches of State (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary)” to promote “a democratic State criminal policy,” “in order to tackle four basic aspects of crime: (1) prevention; (2) investigation; (3) punishment and (4) social rehabilitation.” The State did not provide any documentation in this regard. 337 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 269. 332 333 83