88 creation of the specialized jurisdictional organs in some of the country’s departments, but the information provided to the Court does not reveal what it has done with regard to the remaining departments.354 In addition, the information presented to the Court concerning the lack of an adequate budget to establish the Prosecutor’s Office for Offenses against the Life and Physical Integrity of Women, which was noted by a decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of July 3, 2008, has not been contested.355 The Court has not been informed that this situation has changed. Furthermore, it is pertinent to indicate that article 21 of the 2008 Law against Femicide established that “[t]he Ministry of Finance shall allocate the resources in the State’s Budget of Income and Expenditure for[, inter alia, the c]reation of the Prosecutor’s Office for Offenses against the Life and Physical Integrity of Women, [and the c]reation of specialized jurisdictional organs to hear offenses against the life and physical integrity of women.” In addition, articles 22 and 23 of the law establish a time frame of 12 months for the “establishment” of “[t]he specialized jurisdictional organs referred to in article 15 […] throughout the Republic,” and “[t]he prosecutor’s office referred to in article 14.” Also, in its first report on criminal courts and tribunals for crimes of femicide and other forms of violence against women,” issued in 2012, the Judiciary recognized that “[f]ollowing the entry into force of the Law against Femicide, […] the State’s capacity to respond has not been proportionate as regards the investigation, punishment and redress of the harm.” CONAPREVI has expressed a similar opinion.356 270. Based on the foregoing, and taking into account the provisions of the Law against Femicide, the Court finds it pertinent to order the State, within a reasonable time, to implement the full functioning of the “specialized jurisdictional organs […] throughout the Republic,” as well as of the special prosecutor’s office indicated in this law. D.2) Adoption of integrated public policies and institutional programs aimed at eliminating discriminatory stereotypes regarding the role of women and promoting the eradication of discriminatory socio-cultural patterns that prevent their full access to justice D.2.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 354 In 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice approved the creation of “courts and tribunals for femicide and other forms of violence against women,” in the departments of Guatemala, Chiquimula and Quetzaltenango. Subsequently, in 2012, it approved the creation of another two specialized courts and tribunals in the departments of Huehuetenango and Alta Verapaz. Cf. Judiciary. Guatemala. “Primer Informe. Juzgados y Tribunales Penales de Delitos de Femicidio y otras Formas de Violencia contra la Mujer”, supra. There is no record that specialized jurisdictional organs have been created in the other 17 departments of Guatemala. 355 The State indicated, without mentioning the dates when they initiated their functions, the “creation of special prosecutor’s offices of the Public Prosecution Service.” In this regard, it indicated the existence of the “Office of the Prosecutor for Women,” responsible for the “criminal prosecution” in cases of “family violence and […] violence against women,” and “specialized prosecutors” in Guatemala City, in the municipalities of Villa Nueva and Mixco, and in the Departments of Chiquimula, Quetzaltenango, Coatepeque and Huehuetenango that “exclusively hear crimes of femicide.” Information presented by the representative specifies that, at September 4, 2012, the date of the motions and arguments brief, “the Office of the Prosecutor of Crimes against the Life and Physical Integrity of Women, contemplated in the Law against Femicide, had not yet been created, because [the Public Prosecution Service] does not have the budgetary capacity to do this.” However, at that date, the Office of the Prosecutor for Women had been established in six municipalities (Mixco, Villa Nueva, Quetzaltenango, Chiquimula, Coatepeque and Huehuetenango). A decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of July 3, 2008, established the competence of the prosecutor’s offices that existed at that date “to hear” “crimes of femicide, as well as attempted femicide […] until the necessary budget is available for the establishment of the specialized agencies referred to in article 14 of the Law against Femicide and other Forms of Violence against Women.” Decision No. 70-2008, of July 3, 2008, issued by the Prosecutor General and Head of the Public Prosecution Service (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 98, fs. 10,826 and 10,827). 356 In a document dated March 22, 2012, provided by the State, this State entity indicated that “[t]he system of justice has collapsed owing to the number of judicial proceedings requested in the context of crimes of violence against women.” Report of CONAPREVI to the Presidential Human Rights Commission (COPREDEH), in response to a request of the Inter-American Commission in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, supra, p. 2.