47 b) On May 16, 2012, the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office asked the Secretary General of the Public Prosecution Service to assign three investigators to the office in order to follow up on the case, because “the office no longer had the investigators who were working on it”;205 c) On February 8, 2012, the Mixco Court of First Instance issued an order to end the investigation and gave the Public Prosecution Service eight days to rule in this regard. On February 23, 2012, the prosecutor asked the judge not to close the case and repeated this request in a hearing held on March 29, 2012,206 and d) On September 27, 2012, “an oral hearing to end the investigation” was held in which the Public Prosecution Service requested that the “proceedings continue with the investigation stage, because [a] statement [was] pending.” The judge “decided that the request was admissible,” and “set the date of December [3,] [2012,] for the hearing to end the investigation.”207 VIII RIGHTS TO LIFE, PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND PERSONAL LIBERTY, IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, AND THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, AND TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 120. The Inter-American Commission indicated that respect for Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, presupposes not only that no person may be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also requires the States to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life, and added that: Protection of the right to life is a critical component of a State’s due diligence obligation to protect women from acts of violence, [and that this] obligation pertains to the entire State apparatus, and also includes any obligations the State may have to prevent and to respond to actions of non-State actors and private parties. 121. It also considered that the States must “have an appropriate legal framework of protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to complaints.” In this regard, it indicated that the Convention of Belém do Pará establishes obligations for the States “to adopt reasonable and diligent measures to prevent violence against women and girls, regardless of whether this occurs in the home, the community or the public sphere.” 122. It also indicated that: In cases of violence against women, an obligation of strict due diligence arises with regard to reports of missing women, in relation to search operations during the first hours and days, [which] demands an immediate and effective response on the part of the authorities when complaints of disappearance are filed, to prevent adequately the violence against women. 205 Cf. Note issued by the prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office of May 16, 2012 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 50, f. 5,473). 206 Cf. Note dated March 21, 2012, from the prosecutor of Agency No. 1 of the Mixco Municipal Prosecutor’s Office to the Mixco First Court (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 120, fs. 12,660 and 12,661). 207 Record of the hearing of September 29, 2012 to end the investigation (annexes to the brief with final arguments of the State, f. 14,729). In its answer, the State advised that “[o]n December 3, 2012, a hearing was held because the judge had summoned the parties in order to hold a hearing to end the investigation. Once again the Public Prosecution Service requested that the proceedings remain open because the investigation was ongoing.”