69 Branch of the state of Chihuahua amended in 1998 and in force in 2001, it is the function of the state Attorney-General’s Office “[t]o order appropriate measures to combat and eradicate violence against women and children, by implementing the pertinent institutional mechanisms,”285 as well as “[t]o provide the protection of the rights of the victims established by law.”286 269. The Court also observes that, at the federal level, the National Women’s Institute (hereinafter “INMUJERES”) was created, under a law published in the Official Gazette on January 12, 2001.287 This law established that the general purpose of INMUJERES is “to promote and encourage conditions that prevent gender-based discrimination, and facilitate equal opportunities and treatment for both sexes; and the full exercise of the rights of women and their equal participation in the political, cultural, economic and social life of the country.”288 Nevertheless, the INMUJERES actions and programs described in the case file are subsequent to 2001, the year in which the victims were killed; consequently, they are not applicable to this case. 270. Mexico also referred to the creation in 1998 of a pilot program entitled “Program to provide Services to Victims of Crime” and indicated that, in 2000, as part of this program, “a database was created to facilitate tracing and locating disappeared persons.” However, the Court observes that it has no pertinent information in the case file for assessing these initiatives. 271. In addition, the State forwarded as evidence a report of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua presented to the Inter-American Commission in March 2002 that described a series of actions adopted by the state government. Mexico did not forward any additional evidence about the different measures indicated in this document. Furthermore, the State did not provide additional information on these actions in its pleadings,289 or give specific information such as the date and places in which they were implemented, or their results. Accordingly, the Tribunal is unable to assess them. 272. The Court takes note that the 2003 reports of the IACHR Rapporteur and of Amnesty International refer to a series of measures taken by the State, which included expanding street lights, paving roads, increasing security in high-risk areas, improving the selection of bus drivers who transport female workers at all hours, programs to ensure stricter control of alcohol consumption, and the installation of two emergency telephone lines.290 However, these reports do not give the dates on which these measures were taken, so that the Tribunal is unable to assess them as prevention measures adopted by Mexico prior 2001. 285 Cf. Article 35, fraction V of the Organic Law of the Executive Branch of the state of Chihuahua, published in Official Gazette No. 79 of October 1, 1986, latest amendment POE 2005.01(1)9/No. 6. 286 Cf. Article 35, fraction VI of the Organic Law of the Executive Branch of the state of Chihuahua, supra note 285. 287 Cf. Law on the National Women’s Institute (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIII, attachment 86, folios 16010 to 16019). 288 Article 4 of the Law on the National Women’s Institute, supra note 287, folio 16010. 289 The State mentioned the Zero Tolerance Program and Operation Crucero in their pleadings, but did not explain the achievements or results of these programs (Cf. brief in answer to the application, merits case file, volume III, folio 1031). The Court observes that, in said document of the Attorney General’s Office, supra para. 270, the State mentioned that the crimes decreased as a result of these programs, but did not provide further explanations or additional evidence in this regard. 289 290 Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64. Cf. IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, supra note 64, folio 1820 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2285.