State actions (taken prior to the date of the facts) with regard to the problem of violence against women,50 considering the analysis of that moment concluded. 26. With regard to the “second moment” (the time elapsed between the report and discovery of the body), the Court sought to elucidate the existence of the State’s international responsibility by, first, evaluating whether “the State [had been], or should have been, aware of the situation of real and immediate danger of [the victim”; second, “whether, being aware, it had a reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding the perpetration of the crime” and, third, “whether it exercised due diligence with measures or actions to avoid the violation of the rights of this child.”51 27. To this end, the Court divided its analysis into two moments, the first with regard to the “[e]xistence of a situation of risk for [the victim],”52 and the second with regard to the “[p]ossbility of diligent action by the State to prevent the risk and its implementation.”53 Regarding the first moment, the Court determined that, following the report made by the victim’s mother, the State was aware of the dangerous situation of the victim given the context in Guatemala54 and, regarding the second moment, that, despite being aware of the missing person report, the State had not taken any substantive action to investigate what had happened or to avoid possible violations of the victim’s rights. 55 28. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Guatemala had incurred State responsibility because it had failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the rights to life and personal integrity recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 19 (Rights of the Child) and 1(1) of this instrument, as well as its obligations under Article 7(b) of the “Convention of Belém do Pará.”56 29. As can be observed in the two cases examined, in established State responsibility as a result of the analysis of obligation of prevention, where it has examined the State’s situation, as well as the actions and measures taken based diligence in the specific case. its case law, the Court has the “second moment” of the awareness of the dangerous on its obligation to act with 30. However, it may be noted that, when analyzing the “first moment” — which I am intending to emphasize in this opinion – it has opted to rule that, despite the context of violence against women, the lack of prevention did not per se result in the State’s international responsibility, since the State was unaware of a real and immediate danger for the victims before they went missing, as well as the impossibility for the State to respond unrestrictedly for every wrongful act against the victims.57 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 139. 51 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 142. 52 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 155. 53 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 144. 54 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 154. 55 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 155. 56 I/A Court HR, Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 158. 57 I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 282, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. 50 9