44 as to blame the women for their alleged low moral standards.”150 The U.N. Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions indicated that: [T]he arrogant behavior and obvious indifference shown by some state officials […] leave the impression that many of the crimes were deliberately never investigated for the sole reason that the victims were “only” young girls with no particular social status and who therefore were regarded as expendable. It is to be feared that a lot of valuable time and information may have been lost because of the delays and irregularities.151 154. Evidence provided to the Court indicates, inter alia, that officials of the state of Chihuahua and the municipality of Juárez made light of the problem and even blamed the victims for their fate based on the way they dressed, the place they worked, their behavior, the fact that they were out alone, or a lack of parental care.152 In this regard, it is worth noting the assertion by the CNDH in its Recommendation 44/1998 that it had documented statements by officials and authorities of the state Attorney’s Office that revealed an “absence of interest or willingness to pay attention to and remedy a serious social problem, as well as a form of discrimination” that constituted a “form of sexist denigration.”153 1.7.3. Absence of clarification 155. The Commission emphasized that the response of the authorities to the crimes against women had been “notably deficient” and alleged that the great majority of the murders remained unpunished at the time of the IACHR Rapporteur’s visit to Ciudad Juárez in 2002. It also indicated that, even though the State was aware of how serious the situation was, “there was a wide gap between the incidence of the problem of violence against women and the quality of the [S]tate response to this phenomenon, which propelled the repetition of the incidents”. 156. The representatives alleged that, during the year in which the facts of the instant case occurred, “that is, eight years after it was evident that violence against women was increasing,” the situation of impunity had not improved, and it was the year during which the most women were killed. 157. The State reiterated “its conviction that in [the instant case] and, in general as regards the murders of women in Ciudad Juárez, this does not constitute a situation of impunity, because a significant number of perpetrators have been investigated, pursued, captured, tried and punished.” It also indicated that, from January 1993 to May 2008, 432 cases of murders of women had been recorded; of these “45.25% have been resolved by a jurisdictional body and 33.02% are being investigated.” 158. The Court observes that various reports agree that the failure to solve the crimes is a very important characteristic of the killings of women in Ciudad Juárez. The 2003 Report of the IACHR Rapporteur indicates that the vast majority of the murders remained in impunity.154 Furthermore, according to CEDAW “a culture of impunity has 150 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, supra note 74, folio 2100. 151 Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2053. 152 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1765; Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1928; Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, supra note 73, folio 2052; CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2139, and testimony of expert witness Monárrez Fragoso, supra note 101, folios 3938 and 3940. 153 CNDH, Recomendación 44/1998, supra note 72, folio 2155. 154 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1734.