28 the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, “since impunity fosters 150 chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.” 126. To prevent impunity, under Article 1 of the American Convention the State has an obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized therein: The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim's full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. The same is true when the State allows private persons or groups to act freely and 151 with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention. 127. Based on these considerations, the Commission concludes that in the instant case, the State failed to comply with its duty to act with due diligence to conduct a proper investigation of the facts surrounding the death of María Isabel Véliz Franco, to punish those responsible, and thereby avoid impunity, all in violation of articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to the detriment of Rosa Franco Sandoval (mother), Leonel Enrique Véliz Franco (brother), José Roberto Franco (brother), Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco de Franco (grandmother, deceased) and 152 Roberto Franco Pérez (grandfather, deceased). C. Right to live free of violence and discrimination (Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará) and the right to equal protection (Article 24 of the American Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention 128. According to the petitioners, the State violated Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará by its failure to act with due diligence in the investigation of the case, as part of a systemic impunity that breeds violence against women. The crisis of violence against women and the demonstrated lack of interest in addressing it, are a violation of the State’s obligations under that Convention. They also maintain that the authorities in charge of the investigation sought to discredit both the victim, because of her gender, and the victim’s mother. The State, for its part, maintains that the investigations were objective and that the State has never intended to bring discredit on the name of the victim or her mother. It contends that the investigation turned up certain information which the State never used to smear the reputation of or denigrate the victim or her next of kin. 129. Article 24 of the Convention provides that “[a]ll persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” The InterAmerican Court has written that: The notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human family and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. That principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority. It is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so 150 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March, 8, 1997. Series C No. 37, paragraph 173. 151 IACHR, Merits Report No. 54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paragraph 43, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 176, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Godínez Cruz. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paragraph 175. 152 See jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 408; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of March 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 212; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 241.