25 gender-based murders from cases of the violent death of women.68 In this regard, in 2008, the State informed the Mechanism to Follow Up on the Implementation of the Convention of Belém do Pará (MESECVI), in relation to “the statistical data,” that “this is difficult to access, and owing to budgetary restrictions, information has been collected, but this has not been processed and/or information has been processed but has not been published.”69 The MESECVI indicated that the State information was insufficient (infra footnote 244).70 72. The Court will examine the observations of the parties and the Commission with regard to the context, as well as the evidence that exists, taking into account everything that has been alleged. It should be clarified that it will also consider the expert evidence, and the following type of documentary evidence: (a) documents from State entities; (b) documents from international entities of both the United Nations and the inter-American systems; (c) documents elaborated by non-governmental organizations, and (d) a document prepared under the coordination of one of the expert witnesses who intervened in the case other than her expert opinion. In addition, all the texts and opinions referred to were produced based on data from Guatemalan State sources. A.3) Homicidal violence in Guatemala in 2001 and its specificity and evolution in relation to women victims 73. The Court notes that, in December 2001, Guatemala was experiencing an escalation of homicidal violence with a high rate in comparison with other countries. In this context, starting in 2000 or 2001, there was an increase in the number of murders in general and, together with this, a proportionally significant increase in the murder of women. Furthermore, there is data indicating that some of the attacks suffered by women, even in 68 The Court notes that, in May 2008, Guatemala approved Decree No. 22-2008 or the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women, which defines crimes subject to public prosecution, including that of “femicide.” Article 3 of the decree states that this consists in the “[v]iolent death of a woman in exercise of genderbased power against women in the context of the unequal power relations between men and women.” Furthermore, expert witnesses Ana Carcedo Cabañas and María Eugenia Solís stated that the violent deaths of women in Guatemala could be classified as “femicide.” Cf. Expert opinion of Ana Carcedo Cabañas provided by affidavit received on April 30, 2013 (file of preliminary objections, merits, and reparations and costs, fs. 896 to 906) and expert opinion of María Eugenia Solís García provided at the public hearing held on May 15, 2013. In addition, in the judgment in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, this Court used the expression “‘gender-based murder of women,’ also known as feminicide” (Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 143). The Court clarifies that, for the purposes of this Judgment, it will use the expression “gender-based murder of women,” to refer to “feminicide” or “femicide.” It should also be understood, as regards the Law against Femicide, that it was not in force in Guatemala at the time of the events that occurred to María Isabel Veliz Franco, and that the Court’s reference to this law does not entail a ruling on its application to the case. 69 Follow-up Mechanism on the Convention of Belém do Pará (MESECVI). Second Conference of the States parties, supra, p. 79. 70 Similarly, the Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI), a State agency, indicated that “[i]t is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the problem [of family violence and violence against women] in Guatemala, owing to the absence of reliable and up-to-date records.” Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI), PLANOVI 2004-2014: National Plan for the Prevention and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women, June 2006, p. 6 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 10, fs. 14,073 to 14,093). For her part, expert witness Ana Carcedo Cabañas stated that “[t]he first significant finding on femicide in relation to Guatemala is the difficulty to find the necessary information […]. It is the Central American country in which, at least up until 2006, this problem was most frequent. […] In 2003, it was quantified; while in other countries of the region it is difficult to obtain information in 20% of the murders or less, in Guatemala this percentage ascends to 70%.” The expert related this to the actions of the “police and judicial” system, when stating that social research […] considers the State institutions a privileged source, and it would be difficult to fill in [… t]he gaps in the information [of that system] from other sources.” Cf. Expert opinion of Ana Carcedo Cabañas, supra. Meanwhile, expert witness María Eugenia Solís García stated that, “[i]n 2001 no statistical data [on genderbased murders] were produced and, nowadays, it is produced but it is inconsistent. [… T]he Public Prosecution Service and the [National Institute of Forensic Science of Guatemala] INACIF come closest, but their figures do not agree. The National Police provide one figure, the Public Prosecution Service another, the Judiciary another, and the press another […].” Cf. Expert opinion of María Eugenia Solís García, supra.