19. The petitioners further add that gender discrimination has constituted an obstacle to the investigation in this case, and that the facts described should be analyzed within the context of the killing of women in Guatemala: there is a systematic pattern of murders of women. In this respect, they contend, the State has not adopted measures to protect the right to life of women; evidence of this, they assert, is provided by the Office of the Human Rights Defender, which states that out of 1,188 cases of women and girls murdered between 2001 and 2004, only 9% of them have been investigated. 20. The petitioners claim that the lack of investigative capacity and interest on the part of the authorities “breeds more violence as well as mistrust in those state institutions responsible for protecting the human rights of the citizens. The impunity generated sends the message that these acts are tolerated, allowing violence against women to become systematic.” 5 21. In sum, the petitioners contend that the exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be required in this case, since it has been proven that the process has been characterized by an unwarranted delay, and to date there has been no “final decision” in this case. B. The State 22. The State of Guatemala contends, first, that through the Office of the Attorney General, the investigating agency in criminal matters, the State has carried out an in-depth investigation of the case to find the party responsible of the “crimes of kidnapping and murder” of María Isabel Véliz Franco. 6 23. The State also maintains that in the instant case, as in many that have been taking place in the country, although investigations have not provided positive results due to the lack of physical and scientific evidence, there have been coordinated actions between the Office of the Attorney General with the Criminal Investigation Service of the National Civil Police, as well as with the Office of the Director of Criminal Investigations, in order to obtain more evidence leading to the guilty parties. 24. The State declares its “interest in clarifying the murders of women that have occurred in recent years due to the violence generated against women in our country.” Proof of this, it asserts, is the invitation President Oscar Berger made, at the request of civil society representatives, to Susana Villarán, the former Rapporteur on the Rights of Women, for her to visit Guatemala and study this problem. 25. The State affirms that it has carried out seventy-two proceedings between January 14, 2002 and November 22, 2004, including “subpoenas, searches, and authorizations for the release of lists of telephone calls.” 7 26. Regarding the follow-up of the anonymous telephone call, the State maintains that, based on the available information, which can be found in a January 15, 2002 report, surveillance was begun of a house on 6th Street 5-24 of the Nueva Montserrat Development, Zone 3 of Mixco and not Zone 7, as mistakenly has been stated; no vehicle with the described characteristics was seen. The State further alleges that the characteristics of the car described by the anonymous informant were indeed investigated, but it was decided that on the date of the crime there was no car in the vicinity with the license plate numbers given. 27. The State maintains that on July 8, 2003, it searched the property where allegedly the vehicle used to move the body of María Isabel Véliz Franco was to be found, with negative results. 5 6 7 Petitioners’ communication dated January 25, 2005. State’s communication dated December 16, 2004. State’s communication dated April 12, 2005. 5