62 investigation into the death had requested them.” Even though some forensic tests were not performed, the autopsy was carried out, and also luminescence tests with ultraviolet lamp and acid phosphatase test, a biological analysis of the underwear and of two towels, which identified the presence of blood and hairs, but did not find semen, and the procedure of comparing the hairs has not been carried out, because the presumed perpetrator has not been identified. 173. Despite what it had indicated in the proceedings before the Commission (supra para. 19), the State denied that it had incurred in an unjustified delay in the investigations due to the jurisdictional dispute, because this was “legitimate under domestic law and must be decided by the Supreme Court of Justice”; moreover, “it was not that the judges responsible for overseeing the investigation did not want to supervise it, but rather they must be authorized and competent to do so.” It emphasized ‘that the obligation of the Public Prosecution Service is to conduct an objective investigation, and although investigations take time, despite the said jurisdictional dispute, the investigation has progressed over time.” It also indicated the different steps taken while the “interlocutory issue” was underway and, therefore, stressed that this lapse “does not mean that the State did not obtain any evidence at that time.” 174. The State also asserted that arguing the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará “is meaningless, because the State […] condemns all forms of violence against women and has attempted to adopt policies guided by the principles of the relevant legal norms promptly and using all appropriate means.” It argued that both the Commission and the representatives are seeking to attribute María Isabel’s death to [the State] based on an omission; however, it rejected this accusation, because “the State bodies responsible for investigating her whereabouts, did this.” 175. The State argued that, “although it does not accept or in any way approve of violence against women, not all crimes committed against individuals of the female gender are perpetrated against them because they are women.” Specifically, it indicated that, in the instant case, neither the Commission nor the representatives had proved or even stated “that María Isabel disappeared and was murdered because she was female.” Accordingly, it asked the Court to “rule in this regard because, even though the case relates to someone’s life, there is no evidence that those responsible killed her because she was female.” 176. With regard to the accusations that the investigation was conducted in a biased and discriminatory manner, the State asserted that “there is no record anywhere that the authorities acted arbitrarily in this regard; [t]o the contrary, they have performed their work within the framework of the law in force at the time of the events.” In addition, regarding the allegations of the representatives and the Commission that the reports drawn up by the authorities contained some biased or discriminatory statements, it indicated that these were made by third parties, who “stated what they knew and provided the information that, in their opinion, was necessary” and that, therefore, “it is clear that the officials in charge of the investigation had never attacked the honor and dignity of the victim or dealt with the case on an unequal footing because the victim was a woman, and they have not discriminated against her mother on that basis.” It added that “in no way had María Isabel been afforded an unequal treatment because she was a female victim, or because she was a girl.” The State also maintained that neither had it accorded the presumed victim’s mother unequal treatment in her search to obtain justice, and that the latter had freely exercised all her rights with the full equal protection of the law, even though the result of the investigation had not been satisfactory. 177. Regarding the allegation that the State had not investigated or sanctioned the respective public officials, it indicated that “although Mrs. Franco Sandoval has expressed her disagreement with the proceedings and with the persons in charge of the corresponding entities, this does not mean that the matter was not investigated to determine whether any sanction was in order.” It repeated that the State agents “acted in keeping with the law in force at the time the events occurred and, consequently, these persons cannot be reproached for the way in which they performed their task.”