48 123. The Commission also stated that “in cases of violence against girls, the State’s duty to protect the right to life is particularly strict.”208 It affirmed that “States have the obligation to ensure that missing girls are found as soon as possible, once their family has reported that they are missing. Accordingly, it must set in motion all resources to mobilize the different institutions and to deploy domestic mechanisms to obtain information in order to locate the girls rapidly.” 124. In this particular case it asserted that “the State had an enhanced duty to protect the rights of María Isabel Veliz Franco because she was a minor, and an obligation to adopt special measures of protection, prevention and guarantee.” Specifically, it indicated that “given the fact that the State was aware that María Isabel Veliz Franco was in peril from the moment she was reported missing, its duty was to take immediate steps to search for her.” It also affirmed that State authorities had told Rosa Elvira that “they could not receive her complaint because 48 hours had not passed since the disappearance” of her daughter. The Commission stressed that “no statement was taken from [Rosa Elvira Franco] that might have shed light on investigative leads to follow; no one went to the place where [María Isabel] was last seen alive; and the last persons to see her alive on the day of her disappearance and/or those persons closest to the victim were not interviewed.” 125. Based on the foregoing, it concluded that the State has failed to show that reasonable measures were taken to find [María Isabel].” Furthermore, it underscored that “t]his failure to comply with the obligation to ensure rights is particularly serious in a context of violence against women and girls of which the State was aware.” In addition, it considered that “the State did not show that it had adopted the norms or implemented the measures required under the Convention of Belém do Pará, to enable the authorities to offer an immediate and effective response to complaints of missing persons and adequately prevent violence against women at the time of these events.” The Commission concluded that, consequently, the State had violated Articles 4, 5, 19 and 24 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and also Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 126. The representative indicated that the “State failed entirely to comply with its obligation to prevent violations of the rights to personal liberty, integrity and life of the child, María Isabel Veliz Franco, despite its awareness of her situation of real and imminent danger.” In this regard, it indicated that, in response to the complaint presented by María Isabel’s mother, the State “failed to take a single measure to protect María Isabel and to prevent what happened.” According to the representative, this “was particularly serious owing to the protection that the State was obliged to provide to María Isabel due to her condition as a minor and the increase in the murder of women recorded at the time of the events according to information provided by the National Police, the agency that received the report of her disappearance.” 127. The representative also indicated that the “State failed to comply with its procedural obligations in relation to ensuring the rights to liberty, integrity, and life of the minor María Isabel Veliz Franco.” In this regard, it argued that “the authorities in charge of the investigation have flagrantly violated the obligation of due diligence from the initial stages of the investigation.” 128. Owing to the said “failure to comply with the obligation of prevention” and “failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events relating to [the] disappearance, illtreatment and death” of María Isabel Veliz Franco, the representative affirmed that the State had violated, to her detriment, Articles “7, 5 and 4 of the [American] Convention, 208 It added that “[t]his stems, on the one hand, from the broadly-recognized international obligation to provide special protection to children, due to their physical and emotional development. On the other, it is linked to the international recognition that the due diligence obligation of States to protect and prevent violence has special connotations in the case of women, owing to the discrimination they have historically faced as a group.”