investigation by the authorities into the violent incident and its causes. For this reason, State authorities have the obligation to investigate ex officio the possible gender-related discriminatory connotations of an act of violence perpetrated against a woman, especially when there are concrete indications of sexual violence, or evidence of cruelty to the woman’s body (for example, mutilation), or when the act is part of a wider context of violence against women in a given country or region.232 Furthermore, the criminal investigation must include a gender perspective and be carried out by officials trained in such cases and in dealing with victims of discrimination and gender-based violence.233 131. At the same time, the Court has indicated in its case law that a State may be responsible for failing to “order, practice or evaluate evidence that would have been of great importance for the full clarification of the murders.”234 132. Upon examining the body of evidence in the instant case, the Court finds that, although there were indications that pointed to the possible participation of other persons in the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza,235 a series of relevant investigations were not carried out by the Civil Police of Paraíba (supra paras. 83 to 86). Indeed, the prosecutor in charge of the case, making use of his legal powers, requested, on several occasions, from the Police Commissioner in charge of the investigations, the following: the opinion of a forensic medical expert to determine whether the information contained in autopsy report would suggest that Márcia had not died by strangulation, but by asphyxiation caused by an overdose; the list of entries and exits of vehicles on the date of the event from various motels, including the Trevo Motel; the statements of the owners and managers of the Trevo Motel, as well as those of the doorman and other employees who worked in the early hours of the morning of Márcia’s death, and the handwriting tests on the notes found in Márcia’s pockets and belongings, which recorded the telephone numbers used by Aércio Pereira de Lima and others to determine whether these notes had been written by Ms. Barbosa de Souza or by a third party. The Police Commissioner repeatedly failed to comply with these requests, using the justification of a “backlog” of work. Furthermore, after a series of requests for complementary inquiries by the prosecutor in charge of the case, he finally accepted the inaction of the Commissioner of the Civil Police of Paraíba and called for the dismissal of the investigation due to lack of evidence, which was granted by the judge in charge of the case. 133. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State did not comply with its obligation to act with due diligence and to seriously and fully investigate the possible participation of all the suspects in the homicide of Márcia Barbosa. B.3 The alleged violation of the guarantee of reasonable time 134. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice in cases of human rights violations must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to learn the truth of what happened and for those responsible to be investigated, prosecuted and punished.236 Moreover, a prolonged delay in the process may in itself constitute a violation of judicial guarantees.237 Cf. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 187. Case of Velásquez Paiz, supra, para.146. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 455, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, footnote 195. 234 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 230, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 152. 235 Cf. Final report of the police department for crimes against the person, supra. 236 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Massacre of Xamán) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 79. 237 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. 232 233 -40-