55 2.4. Stereotyping allegedly manifested by officials to the victims’ next of kin 196. The Commission alleged that “when each disappearance was reported, the next of kin received comments from state officials regarding their daughter’s behavior, which, in they opinion, influenced the subsequent lack of official action.” 197. The representatives indicated that “the authorities minimized the facts or discredited” the reports by the victims’ next of kin “on the pretext that they were young girls who ‘were out with their boyfriend’ or ‘were out having a good time.’” 198. Esmeralda Herrera’s mother testified that, when she reported her daughter’s disappearance, the authorities told her that she “had not disappeared, but was out with her boyfriend or wandering around with friends,”222 “that, if anything happened to her, it was because she was looking for it, because a good girl, a good woman, stays at home.”223 199. Claudia Yvette’s mother said that when she went to present the missing report, an official told a friend of her daughter that “she is surely with her boyfriend, because girls were very flighty and threw themselves at men.”224 Her mother also said that, when she went to file the complaint about the disappearance, she was told that “maybe [her daughter] had gone off with her boyfriend, and would soon return home.”225 200. The mother of Laura Berenice Ramos stated that the police agents told her that she would have to look for her daughter, because “all the girls who get lost, all of them, […] go off with their boyfriend or want to live alone.”226 She added that, on one occasion, she asked the police agents to accompany her to a dance hall to look for her daughter; they said “no Señora, it’s very late, we have to go home and rest and you should wait for your moment to look for Laura,” and patted her on the shoulder saying: “go home and relax, have some ‘heladas’ [beer] and offer a toast to our health; because we can’t go with you.”227 201. The State did not contest this testimony by the mothers of the victims. 202. In addition, the testimony of Mrs. Delgadillo Pérez concerning the authorities’ actions in this case indicated that “[t]he responsibility of the victim was determined based on her social role in society in the investigator’s opinion. This means that, if the murdered woman liked to have a good time, to go out dancing, to have male friends and a social life, she was considered to be partly responsible for what happened.”228 According to the witness “[a]t that time, public officials stigmatized the victims of disappearance because they were women,” on the pretext that “they were with their 222 Cf. Testimony given by Mrs. Monreal, supra note 183. See also the statement by Irma Monreal Jaime in the petition filed before the Inter-American Commission on March 6, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application volume XXVII, attachment 42, folio 9802). Similarly, the victim’s brother testified that the authorities said they could not do anything “because she had obviously gone off with her boyfriend” (Cf. testimony of expert witness Azaola Garrido, supra note 186, folio 3369). 223 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monreal Jaime, supra note 183. 224 Cf. communication presented by Josefina González before the Inter-American Commission in September 2006 (case file of attachments to the application, volume II, appendix 5 volume I, folio 141). 225 Cf. testimony of Mrs. González, supra note183. 226 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183. 227 Cf. testimony of Mrs. Monárrez, supra note 183, and file card issued by the Head of the Federal Investigation Agency reporting on the interview with Benita Monárrez Salgado on October 15, 2003 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III volume II, folio 13579). 228 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481.