94 what happened to Mss. Herrera, González and Ramos.406 376. Similarly, a brief submitted by the representatives to the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua included a list of 25 public officials who, it alleged, should be investigated for various omissions, irregularities and negligence related to the Cotton Field case.407 The State did not provide any arguments with regard to the accusations made by the representatives in this brief. 377. The Tribunal emphasizes that administrative or criminal sanctions play an important role in creating the appropriate type of capability and institutional culture deal with factors that explain the context of violence against women established in this case. If those responsible for such serious irregularities are allowed to continue in their functions or, worse still, to occupy positions of authority, this may create impunity together with conditions that allow the factors that produce the context of violence to persist or deteriorate. 378. Based on the information available in the case file before the Court, the Tribunal finds that none of the officials supposedly responsible for the negligence that occurred in the instant case has been investigated. Specifically, the serious irregularities that occurred in the investigation of those responsible and in the handling of the evidence during the first stage of the investigation have not been clarified. This emphasizes the defenselessness of the victims, contributes to impunity, and encourages the chronic repetition of the human rights violations in question. 4.2.2.6. Alleged denial of access to the case file, and delays or refusal of copies of the file 379. The Commission alleged that the next of kin “have not had access to the case files” and have not been allowed to photocopy it. However, the Commission did not clarify the dates or provide arguments concerning the evidence in this regard. 380. The representatives alleged that “access to the [case file] has been denied systematically.” They stated that, in December 2004, the Chihuahua Attorney General promised to hand over a copy of the case files, but this was not done. They affirmed that the same request was made in writing in 2005, 2006 and 2007, but they never received an answer. Nevertheless, they did not provide copies of these requests. 381. The representatives also alleged that, on August 4, 2006, they met with the state Attorney General and with the EAAF and asked them for a copy of the investigations conducted up until that time. They affirmed that the copies were delivered to one of the mothers a month later; but they were incomplete. Consequently the missing copies were requested; but no reply was received. They indicated that, on September 13, 2006, the next of kin requested “copies of the case file or permission to read them at the Prosecutor’s Office. [The competent authority] refused either of these options, arguing that investigative actions were being incorporated owing to some recent events related to the murders.” The representatives added that they requested the case file in writing on at least six occasions, but this was refused based on the argument that “investigations are underway” and that “the right of the victims to examine their own case files cannot be given priority over the 406 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, Informe de Funcionarios Sancionados, issued on April 27, 2009 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XLIX, attachment 5, folios 17319 to 17346). 407 Cf. denunciation of facts submitted by the Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos A.C. on June 5, 2007 (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 92, folios 3546 to 3588).