60 Regarding Laura Berenice Ramos, the family only had a collar bone, which they handed over to the EAAF for confirmation of identity, because they had cremated the other remains.246 The remains of Claudia Ivette González were not included in the cases reexamined by the EAAF, owing to the refusal of her next of kin.247 219. Despite the deficiencies in the initial stages of the investigations, especially in the autopsy procedure – which the Court will refer to below in greater detail – in the case of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal it can be concluded that, since her hands were tied behind her back, the lower part of her body exposed, her blouse and brassiere raised above her breasts, part of her right breast missing and parts of her left nipple damaged (supra para. 212), she must have endured such cruelty that it had to have caused her severe physical and mental suffering before she died. 220. With regard to Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez and Claudia Ivette González, this Tribunal is unable to differentiate scientifically which injuries were caused by abuse and which by the passage of time owing to the above-mentioned deficiencies in the first stage of the investigations. Consequently, it must take into consideration the different factors relating to the disappearance of the victims. Specifically that, with all probability, the treatment they experienced during the time they remained kidnapped before their death caused them, at the very least, severe mental suffering and that, very possibly, the acts that took place before they died, as in the case of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, had a sexual motive, because the young women were found with the lower part of their bodies exposed and, in the case of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, her blouse and brassiere had been raised above her breasts (supra para. 212). The foregoing, combined with the fact that, at the time of the disappearance of the victims, there were numerous similar cases in Ciudad Juárez in which the women showed signs of “sexual violence” (supra paras. 116 and 117). 221. The three victims were deprived of their liberty before they died. Owing to the deficiencies in the autopsy reports, the Court is unable to establish the length of their captivity with certainty. 3. The violence against women in this case 222. The Commission and the representatives referred to what Mss. González, Ramos and Herrera, experienced as “violence against women.” The representatives alleged that “the killings in this case are similar in their infinite cruelty; they are crimes of hate against the girls and women of Ciudad Juárez, misogynous crimes born from an immense tolerance – and social and State encouragement – of general violence against women.” 223. The State recognized “[t]he situation of violence against women in Ciudad Juárez […] as a problem, all aspects of which must be combated.” 224. Before examining the possible international responsibility of the State in this case, the Tribunal deems it pertinent to establish whether the violence suffered by the three victims constitutes violence against women under the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 246 Cf. appearance of Benita Monárrez Salgado before an official of the Chihuahua Public Prosecutor’s Office on July 24, 2006 (merits case file, volume VII, folio 2718). 247 Cf. forensic DNA and anthropological report concerning Esmeralda Herrera Monreal issued by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team on June 12, 2006 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, docket I, volume I, folio 10341).