the subordination of women to practices based on socially-dominant and socially-persistent gender stereotypes. In this regard, their conception and use becomes one of the causes and consequences of gender-based violence against women, conditions that are exacerbated when they are reflected, implicitly or explicitly, in policies and practices, and particularly in the reasoning and language of the State authorities.249 144. In particular, the Court has recognized that personal prejudices and gender stereotypes affect the objectivity of State officials in charge of investigating complaints submitted to them, influencing their perception in determining whether or not an act of violence occurred, and their assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of the victim herself. Such stereotyping “distorts perceptions and results in decisions based on preconceived beliefs and myths, rather that relevant facts,” which in turn may give rise to the denial of justice, and the revictimization of the complainants.250 145. The Court has already expressed its position on the importance of recognizing, making visible and rejecting gender stereotypes which, in cases of violence against women, often result in the victims being associated with the profile of a gang member and/or a prostitute or a “whore”, and are not considered important enough to be investigated, making the woman responsible or deserving of having been attacked. In this regard, it has rejected any State practice that justifies violence against women and blames them for it, since assessments of this nature show a discretionary and discriminatory criterion based on the origin, condition and/or behavior of the victim simply because she is a woman. Consequently, the Court has considered that these harmful or prejudicial gender stereotypes are incompatible with international human rights law and that measures must be taken to eradicate them wherever they occur.251 146. In the case sub judice, the Court finds that there was an intention to devalue the victim by neutralizing her value. Indeed, throughout the investigation and criminal proceedings, the behavior and sexuality of Márcia Barbosa became a subject of special attention, resulting in the construction of an image of Márcia as causing or deserving what happened and shifting the focus of the investigations through stereotypes related to aspects of Márcia Barbosa's personal life, which in turn were used as relevant facts in the trial itself.252 The fact that she was a woman was a facilitating factor in that “the significance of the facts was based on general cultural stereotypes, rather than focusing on the context of what happened and the objective results of the investigation.”253 147. In fact, in the various witness statements taken in the course of the police investigation and the criminal proceedings, the reiteration of questions about Márcia Barbosa's sexuality was evident. Similarly, questions about her alleged drug and alcohol consumption were raised, even though the chemical toxicological tests carried out in the first days of the investigations, parallel to the autopsy, had found only an insignificant amount of substances in her blood that would allow Mrs. Barbosa de Souza to preserve her normal reflex faculties.254 In this regard, the 249 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401. Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 173, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 189. See also, U.N. CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women’s Access to Justice, supra, para. 26. 251 Cf. Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 183. 252 Cf. Expert opinion rendered by Soraia da Rosa Mendes, supra (evidence file, folio 10402). 253 Cf. OHCHR UN Women. Latin American Model Protocol for the investigation of gender-related killings of women, p. 24. 254 Cf. Statement of Lúcia de Fátima Vasconcelos Dias, included in the decision of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folio 2300 and 2301). 250 -43-