49. In addition, in the above-mentioned judgment in the case of Veliz Franco et al., this Court considered that, in December 2001, as well as in the following years, there was a high rate of general impunity in the State; in other words, relating to different types of crimes and victims. In this context, most violent acts that led to the death of women remained unpunished, and that situation, both the general one and the specific one as regards violent acts against women, has not changed substantially up until the present.33 The Court also noted that a high proportion of such crimes are not reported 34 and that the absence of the effective punishment of crime in general may be linked to the flaws in the investigations.35 Added to this, the Court referred to reports and the testimony of women survivors and their families that mention the “tendency of investigators to discredit the victims and to blame them for their lifestyle or their clothes” and to question the victims on aspects of their personal and sexual relationships.36 Information provided in this case indicates that, in investigations of crimes against women, the authorities and investigators still often tend to have this type of attitude.37 Musalo indicated that “[i]n 2005, femicides in Guatemala were perpetrated in the context of many other forms of violence that occurred at a shocking level; the killings did not represent isolated incidents, but reflected the greater context of omnipresent violence against women. The violence extended over all sectors of society and included domestic violence and other forms of violence within the family: sexual violence, incest, trafficking in women for sexual exploitation, and sexual harassment. Although there are no official statistics, the few that do exist reveal a high incidence of violence in the home, in the community and among the public in general.” Cf. Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6655). In 2006, the Committee against Torture expressed its concern regarding “the increase in violent killings of women, which often involve sexual violence, mutilations and torture.” Cf. United Nations, Committee against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, CAT/C/GTM/CO/4, July 25, 2006, para. 16. Available at: https://undocs.org/CAT/C/GTM/CO/4. In 2004, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of women of the Inter-American Commission had received reports consistent with murders “to set an example,” in which the abuse reflected by the state of the victim’s body and the areas in which the corpses were left, is designed to send a message of terror and intimidation. She reported that she had “also received information and evidence on other forms of violence affecting women such as family and domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment and abduction, amongst others.” Cf. IACHR, Press release, No. 20/04, September 18, 2004, paras. 7 and 10. Available at http://www.IACHR.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2004/20.04.htm, and United Nations, Economic and Social Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences,” Mission to Guatemala, E/CN.4/2005/72/Add.3, February 10, 2005, paras. 33 and 34. Available at: https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/108/17/PDF/G0510817.pdf?OpenElement. 33 In the case of Veliz Franco et al., the State provided specific and detailed information on the measures adopted before and after December 2001, aimed at addressing discrimination and violence against women. Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 82 to 84 and 264. The Court has noted that, in addition to the information provided on that occasion, in this case information has been submitted on State actions in the investigation of murders of women. Cf. Expert opinion of Paloma Soria Montañez provided by affidavit on April 16, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6765); Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6658 to 6660), and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas,” January 20, 2007, paras. 18 and 130. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/women/Access07/tocaccess.htm. 34 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 87. 35 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 89. 36 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 90 and 212. 37 Expert witness Karen Musalo explained that “[t]he fact that violence could be inflicted on women and girls with an almost certainty that it would not be punished, increased the levels of violence. The deficiencies in the legal system were documented at each stage of the investigation process; ranging from failure to respond to a missing person report, to contamination of the crime scenes in order to prejudice the case as a result of discrimination and gender stereotyping by the courts.” Cf. Expert opinion of Karen Musalo provided by affidavit on April 13, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6656). In this regard, expert witness Paloma Soria Montañez emphasized that “[t]he actual situation of violence is also accompanied by a context of impunity. Thus, violence against women is neither investigated nor condemned, and this allows us to affirm that the institutions responsible for security and justice have not reacted with due diligence.” Cf. Expert opinion of Paloma Soria Montañez provided by affidavit on April 16, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6765). In 2007, the Inter-American Commission observed the existence of delays when women victims of violence are reported to have disappeared and that the authorities commit two types of violation: (1) they fail to launch an immediate search for the victim, and (2) they discredit and blame the victim for what happened , thereby indicating that the missing woman does not deserve State efforts to locate and protect her. Cf. IACHR, “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas,” January 20, 2007, para. 135. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/women/Access07/tocaccess.htm. In 2004, the Special Rapporteur for the rights of Women of the Inter-American Commission “heard evidence from victims in many cases that the different agencies responsible for investigating and pursuing the crime treated them in a disrespectful 18