44 the justification of violence against her and the failure to investigate it properly, thereby denying her her dignity.199 That situation was confirmed by a statement made by an official from the prosecutor’s office mentioned above, who said, “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.200 It is also corroborated by comments made at the beginning of the investigation by the authorities to relatives of Claudina Velásquez, who told them that the profile of the alleged victim had been confused with that of a female gang member or a prostitute and, therefore, a person whose death was not worthy of investigation. Likewise, it was demonstrated by the irregularities in the investigation, particularly the failure to conduct interviews in connection with the case in the initial hours after the body was discovered, as well as the irregularities in the preservation of evidence and the failure to identify the cadaver, even after its identity was known. 170. Despite, the efforts that the Guatemalan State has made in recent years to address the problem of violence against women in that country, the IACHR finds that at the time the events in this case occurred, the State had not adopted the necessary measures and policies, in keeping with the obligations it undertook upon its ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to ensure effective investigation and punishment of violent acts committed against the women of Guatemala. In its decision in the case of Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes the IACHR underscored the fact that in order for the State to prove that it complied with its obligation to act with due diligence, in keeping with Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, evidence of the measures taken to eliminate society’s general tolerance of violence against women will not suffice.201 The State must demonstrate that it has a real commitment to eradicating the kind of impunity that exists in the case sub examine.202 Seven years after the disappearance and death of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, the case is still emblematic of the problem of impunity. 171. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the State of Guatemala did not comply with its duty to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish the acts of violence suffered by Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention, and as required by the general obligation to respect and ensure rights undertaken in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The IACHR also finds that Article 11 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, was violated to the detriment of Claudina Isabel Velásquez: Right to humane treatment (Article 5[1]) in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention 172. Time and again the Inter-American Court has held that the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may also be victims by virtue of the additional suffering they have endured as a result of the human rights violations done to their loved ones and by virtue of the subsequent actions or 199 Appendix 35. Gender Stereotyping Transnational Legal Perspectives. Rebecca J. Cook and Simone Cusack, p. 217. 200 Appendix 26. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Informe de Verificación sobre Violaciones al deber de investigar en el caso de Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz [Verification Report on Violations of the Duty to Investigate in the Case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz]. 201 IACHR, Report on Merits No. 54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, par. 57. 202 IACHR, Report on Merits No. 54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, par. 57.