54 date on which it was alleged that the authorities were informed. In addition, it did not present the complete criminal case file. Consequently, the Tribunal considers it to be established that this information was given to the authorities prior to November 6, 2001; in other words, before Claudia Ivette’s body was found.217 The case file does not show that the investigators took any steps to investigate this information in order to find Claudia Ivette González alive. 191. One deponent indicated that a young man told her and Claudia Ivette’s sister that “he was aware – he did not say how – that Claudia Ivette had disappeared.”218 There is no proof that the State carried out any investigation into this evidence. 192. According to the Commission, between the time that Claudia Ivette’s disappearance was reported and when her remains were found, the only contact the authorities had with her family was two telephone calls from the Special Prosecutor’s Office asking them whether they had any news. The State did not contest the foregoing or submit any evidence to the contrary. 193. In the case of Esmeralda Herrera, according to the State her mother told a police agent that her daughter knew a young man who worked in a printing shop and that “he had insisted that she go out for a meal with him,” and that this young man had not gone to work the day the victim disappeared. Subsequently, the authorities received a statement from the young man, who acknowledged that he had spoken to Esmeralda, but denied that he had invited her out for a meal.219 There is no evidence in the case file that the State took any other measure to try and find Esmeralda alive. 194. Although the State alleges that it began the search for the victims immediately, according to the case file, the only measures it took before the remains were found were registering the disappearances and preparing the posters reporting them, taking statements, and sending an official letter to the Judicial Police. There is no evidence in the case file that the authorities circulated the posters or made more extensive inquiries into reasonably relevant facts provided by the 20 or more statements taken.220 195. In addition, the Court finds that these facts can be considered within a general context documented in the case file. Indeed, in January 2006, the United Nations Rapporteur on violence against women indicated that “[r]eportedly, the municipal police of Ciudad Juárez does not routinely initiate search actions or other preventive measures as soon as it receives a report about a missing woman. Inexplicably, the police often wait for confirmation that a crime has actually been committed.”221 217 Similarly, see ECHR, Case of Pukhigova v. Russia, Judgment of 2 July 2009, paras. 75 and 84. 218 Testimony given by Ana Isabel Suárez Valenciana, supra note 209. 219 Cf. appearance of Eduardo Chávez Marín before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to Investigate Murders of Women and Disappearances of Persons, on November 2, 2001 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folios 10315 to 10316). 220 However, the Court observes that there is a testimony by a police agent indicating that other statements were taken, including some at the maquila where Claudia Ivette worked and the school where Esmeralda Ramos studied (Cf. testimony given by José Miramontes Caro on April 14, 2009, before an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, case file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, volume XLVIII, attachment 4, folios 17221 and 17222). 221 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, supra note 64, folio 2018.