53 particular circumstances of the case must be taken into account, and the implementation of the said guarantee obligations.231 138. In this case, there are two key moments at which the obligation of prevention must be analyzed. The first is before the disappearance of the presumed victim, and the second is before the discovery of her body. 139. Regarding the first moment – before the victim’s disappearance – the Court, as it has in the past,232 considers that the eventual failure to prevent the disappearance does not entail per se the international responsibility of the State because, even though it was aware or should have been aware (supra para. 79) of a situation where violent acts, including acts committed against women and even girl children, were perpetrated, it has not been established that it knew of a real and immediate danger for the victim in this case. Despite the fact that the context of this case and the “international obligations impose on the State an increased responsibility as regards the protection of women,” 233 especially girls, which includes the obligation of prevention (supra para. 136), the State does not have an unlimited responsibility in relation to any illegal act against them. Furthermore, regarding this first moment, the Court notes that, prior to December 2001, the State had implemented actions in relation to the problem of violence against women (supra para. 82). 140. In the instant case, the Court observes that the arguments of the representatives and the Commission related to the second moment indicated above; in other words, the time that elapsed between the report filed by Mrs. Franco Sandoval and the discovery of her daughter’s body. Thus, they argue that the State was aware of a risk as of the report filed before the authorities by María Isabel’s mother (supra para. 93). 141. Regarding this moment – before the discovery of the body – it must be decided whether, in view of the particular circumstances of the case and the context in which they occurred, the State was aware that a real and immediate danger existed that María Isabel would be attacked and whether, consequently, an obligation of due diligence arose that, since it was more rigorous, required the implementation of a thorough search. In particular, the prompt and immediate action of the police, prosecution and judicial authorities is necessary ordering prompt and necessary measures aimed at discovering the victim’s whereabouts. Adequate procedures should exist for reports and these should lead to an effective investigation from the very start. The authorities should presume that the missing person is still alive until the uncertainty about his or her fate has been resolved.234 142. Based on the above, in order to determine if the State is internationally responsible, the Court must decide whether, in this specific case, the girl was in a dangerous situation and whether, in this regard, the State, acting within its sphere of competence, could have adopted measures that could reasonably have been expected to prevent or to avoid that situation. To this end, the Court must assess: (a) whether the State was, or should have been, aware of the situation of real and immediate danger of María Isabel Veliz Franco; 235 (b) whether, being aware, it had a reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding the perpetration of the crime and, if so,236 (c) whether it exercised due diligence with measures or actions to avoid the violation of the rights of this child.237 231 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 123; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 280, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 120. 232 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 282. 233 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 282. 234 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 283. 235 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra, para. 123, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 112. 236 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra, para. 123, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 224. 237 Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 122, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 214.