60 due diligence in investigating the facts”; but rather “incurred in acts and omissions that led to the loss of useful – and, in some case, essential – evidence to determine the truth of what happened, which cannot be reconstituted.” It indicated that the State incurred in irregularities in the preservation of the scene where the body was discovered; that the investigation failed to collect and handle the evidence properly; committed omissions and irregularities in conducting essential appraisals, and has not examined all the violations committed against María Isabel, because “it only examined the [presumed] victim’s murder, even though the body had injuries and showed other signs indicating that she could have been a victim of sexual abuse. The complete failure to investigate the acts of sexual violence and cruelty to the child […] is especially egregious owing to the context in which the facts of this case are inserted.” Lastly, it argued that “[t]his omission not only prevents the eventual punishment of those responsible in keeping with the gravity of their actions, but also sends a clear message that the State tolerates violations of the integrity of women and this have no consequences for the perpetrators.” 165. The representative also stated that the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time, because the events took place in December 2001, and more than 10 years had passed without anyone having been prosecuted. It acknowledged that “this case is rather complex, [but that] the delay must be attributed totally to the State […] owing to the acts and omissions of its agents at the start of the investigation, which had an adverse impact on the possibilities of obtaining essential evidence that could not be reconstituted” and who, subsequently, “took measures that led to additional delays, with the result that the proceedings are still at the investigation stage.” It also asserted that María Isabel’s mother “has not only cooperated with the investigation, but the case file shows [that] she has suggested and contributed evidence to the proceedings and has taken numerous steps to advance it ever since the events occurred.” It indicated that, to the contrary, the conduct of the authorities “has been characterized by periods of inaction, the implementation of belated and reactive measures, and by the mechanical reiteration of procedures without an investigation plan or well-defined hypotheses.” Thus, among other matters, it indicated that a jurisdictional dispute arose only three months after the events had occurred, “on March 11, 2002, that was only decided in December 2002, seven months later.” This contributed to the fact that the authorities did not take essential steps until months or even years later, leading to a delay in the proceedings at, at times, causing the measures taken to be unsuccessful. The representative concluded that the delay in the investigations can be attributed solely to the actions of the State. 166. The representative also mentioned that the analysis of the calls to María Isabel’s mobile telephone “was only made in June 2005, [… and] most of the statements made before the Public Prosecution Service and the other evidence […] were obtained months or years after [María Isabel’s murder], reducing the possibility of clarifying what happened.” It also argued that “the measures [implemented] were only taken in order to show procedural activity, because the interviews conducted by the authorities were not thorough, and there is no evidence that they were the result of a pre-defined line of investigation.” 167. The representative indicated that, in keeping with the Court’s standards, the investigation undertaken by the State should have “included a gender perspective;253 follow up on specific lines of investigation relating to sexual violence, including lines of investigation on the respective patterns in the geographical area, […], and should have been carried out by officials who were highly trained in similar cases involving victims of discrimination and gender-based violence.” 168. Lastly, the representative referred to the failure to sanction the public authorities responsible for the irregularities in the processing of the domestic proceedings in this case. It indicated that the failure to investigate this conduct “causes […] concern because, during the international proceedings, the State has acknowledged some of these errors, and this 253 The representative did not make an individual analysis of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, but referred to this article together with several articles of the American Convention.