29 Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI), another State agency, has made similar observations.90 81. Based on the above, it can be concluded that, in the series of violent deaths of women that occurred in Guatemala in 2001, the existence of gender-based murder was not exceptional.91 This conclusion is supported by an assessment of the expert and documentary evidence relating to dates around December 2001.92 In this regard, it is opportune to consider that the type of phenomenon examined here has some degree of continuity over time and that, although it is difficult to define with complete certainty the moment at which it began, at any rate, at the time at which the facts of this case occurred a context existed of an increase in homicidal violence against women in Guatemala. A.4) The State’s actions in the investigation of the murder of women 82. It should be emphasized that the State, before93 and after the facts of this case, has taken diverse measures to deal with the discrimination and violence against women and the 90 It stated that “manifestations of violence [against women] reveal the historically asymmetrical relations between women and men, product of a social organization structured on the basis of inequality, and the oppression of, and discrimination against, women.” 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, supra, p. 6. 91 This does not mean finding it proved that the growth in the number of murders of women is due, exclusively and mainly, to gender-based violence, or gender-based murder in Guatemala, in 2001 or subsequently, as a generalized or growing phenomenon. In this regard, reference should be made to evidence provided by the representatives: a report indicates that two explanations stand out for the increase in the murder of women in Guatemala; one related to “the overall climate of violence experienced by Guatemala that affects both men and women,” and the other related to women’s inequality in relation to men. In the document it is asserted that “[e]ven though violence against women has increased significantly, the available data does not allow it to be concluded that, in Guatemala, femicide is a generalized phenomenon in the country or that it is increasing.” Conflict Analysis Resource Center (CERAC), “Guatemala en la encrucijada. Panorama de una violencia transformada,” supra, p. 59. 92 Expert witness Ana Carcedo Cabañas indicated that “owing to the problems concerning information already mentioned (supra footnote 70), 40% of the murders of women were classified as femicides and 19% more as cases in which femicide was suspected.” In this regard, Amnesty International has stated that “[i]n its 2003 report, the Office of the Ombudsman stated that, from a sample of 61 cases examined in detail, the conclusion could be reached that 22 of the women had died in a context of sexual abuse.” Amnesty International, “Guatemala. No protection, no justice: killings of women”, supra, p. 8. The Court notes that the opinion of expert witness Ana Carcedo Cabañas would lead to the conclusion that, in 2003, an estimated 59% of the murders of women in Guatemala were committed based on the victim’s gender. Furthermore, the information presented by Amnesty International, based on State data, would suggest that, the same year, 36.06% of the deaths of women were associated with a context of sexual abuse. The Court, on the basis of the criteria indicated, finds it possible to conclude that a significant number of the murders of women in 2003 were committed based on the victims’ gender. 93 Also, with regard to that initial time, the Court notes that, prior to December 2001, the State had taken steps related to the problem of violence against women. In 1996, the Law to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Family Violence, Decree No. 97-1996, November 28, 1996, Guatemala, was promulgated (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 20, fs. 14,172 to 14,177). In 2000 and 2001, this was supplemented by regulations and by the creation of the Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI). In 2000, the Presidential Secretariat for Women (SEPREM) was created and the National Policy for the Promotion and Development of Guatemalan Women was established for the period from 2001 to 2006 with its Equal Opportunities Plan. In addition, the Law for the Comprehensive Promotion and Dignification of Women was enacted in March 1999 and the Social Development Act in 2001, by congressional Decrees No. 7-99 and No. 42-2001, respectively. Article 16 of the latter establishes that “social development” and “population” policies shall include measures and actions designed, inter alia, to eradicate and to punish any type of individual or collective violence, abuse and discrimination against women in keeping with the international conventions and treaties ratified by Guatemala. 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, supra, p. 12. In this regard, in August 2001, the United Nations Human Rights Committee “welcome[d] the positive legislative measures adopted [by Guatemala] on behalf of women and the establishment of various bodies intended to promote and protect women’s