43 individuals.”193 This includes the duty of the States not only to abstain from producing discriminatory legislation, standards and policies affecting women’s equality, but also that such standards and policies must be eliminated. 166. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR finds that lack of due diligence with respect to a case of violence against women is a form of discrimination, a failure on the State’s part to comply with its obligation not to discriminate, and a violation of the right to equal protection. The European Court has held that the State’s failure to protect women from violence is a violation of their right to equal protection, and need not be intentional.194 167. With respect to the stereotypes, the petitioners claim that in Guatemala, as a result of the gender stereotype that agents of the State of both sexes apply and reproduce, the mere fact of being a victim of a violent death puts them in a despised, negative category. In this case, as a state official described, “the crime scene was not processed as it should have been because of prejudgment of the victim’s background and status.” She was classified as a person whose death should not be investigated. According to the expert Alvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Howell, the alleged victim “was certainly stigmatized as a prostitute.”195 He also pointed out that it was not common to encounter such stigmatization or prejudice in male murders.196 168. The IACHR notes that in Guatemala at the time that the facts occurred, there was a context of violence against women of which the State was all too aware, in which acts of violence went unpunished thanks to failings and omissions on the part of the authorities. On this subject, the IACHR has held that the influence of discriminatory socio-cultural patterns can adversely affect an investigation of a case and the assessment of any evidence compiled.197 The Court, for its part, has stated that the creation and use of stereotypes becomes one of the causes and consequences of gender violence practiced against women.198 In this context of violence and impunity, the prevailing sexual stereotype in Guatemala consisted of being a young woman from a low socioeconomic stratum. The lack of a state response perpetuated this stereotype, according to which women are inferior and subordinate to men. The IACHR also notes that these stereotypes in the investigation are the result of the existing situation of inequality and discrimination that many women confront due to multiple factors that are interrelated with their sex, such as race, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic condition and others. 169. Indeed in this case, Claudina Isabel Velásquez, a law student, was the victim of stereotypes based on the fact that she was young, her body was found in a low-income area, her manner of dress, and because she had a pierced navel. The authorities’ imposition of stereotypes led to 193 See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, par. 141. 194 See, IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. (United States), July 21, 2011, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02 of June 9, 2009, paragraph 191. 191. 195 IACHR, Record of Hearing No. 30, Case 12.777, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, March 27, 2012. 196 IACHR, Record of Hearing No. 30, Case 12.777, Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, March 27, 2012. 197 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 151. 151. 198 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 401.