to avoid this risk. […] [I]n this case, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Claudina was alive when the authorities became aware of the situation of risk and whether that situation would have an impact on the possibility of finding her. What is necessary, is to determine whether or not the authorities who were informed that Claudina was missing took the measures within the scope of their powers that were or could be expected […in order] to avoid that risk.” Moreover, it stressed that the State had had at least one hour to look for Claudina Velásquez and, “[i]n any case, the determination of the exact time of [her] death […] is an aspect regarding which the authorities incurred in delays and errors that mean that it is still not known with certainty.” 102. The representatives argued that, in the context of the facts of the case, the abuses perpetrated against Claudina Velásquez constituted, individually and collectively, violence against women according to the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará. They indicated that the State had violated its obligation to avoid danger to Claudina Velásquez and to ensure her rights to life, personal integrity, honor and dignity; first, before she went missing by not implementing and executing effective policies and programs to prevent and punish violence against women, including a lack of political will resulting in the failure to allocate the necessary resources to address gender-based violence.169 Second, the State violated these rights following the reports by her parents and before her body was found, because it was fully aware of the dangerous situation in which she found herself owing to the pattern of violence against women and the murder of women in Guatemala. Despite this, it twice refused to receive those reports, requiring a delay of 24 hours to admit them. 170 They also argued that the body of Claudina Velásquez was found with indications of violence and other ill-treatment. In addition, they argued that “the rape of Claudina Isabel constituted, in itself, one of the most aggressive interferences in her privacy as a woman. When she was sexually assaulted, her body was invaded in the most arbitrary manner, affecting her most intimate sphere.”171 Furthermore, in response to the State’s argument that, at most, it would have had one hour to find Claudina Velásquez (infra para. 104), the representatives argued that “there is no doubt that, during this hour, it would have been possible to save her” if, instead of rejecting the family’s report, they had searched for the presumed victim. Consequently, they asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 11 of the American Convention, together with non-compliance with the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudina Velásquez.172 103. Lastly, the representatives argued that, “to determine whether the State had a reasonable possibility of preventing or avoiding the violation of her rights, the time that elapsed between the moment that her parents reported that she was missing […] and the probable time of her death – determined many months after her body had been found – was of no importance. What was important […] is the information that the authorities had when the parents made their report: that Claudina Isabel was missing and that there was an extremely high probability that her life and integrity were threatened, given the context of femicide in Guatemala and, following In this regard, in their final written arguments, they argued that, regarding the programs that the State said it had adopted to combat femicide, only six measures were established before 2005, when the death of Claudina Velásquez occurred. Added to this, those programs “achieved almost nothing,” because “[t]he Government did not provide the necessary funding to enable them to fulfill their mandates.” 170 In their final written arguments, they alleged, for the first time, that the State authorities told the parents of Claudina Velásquez that “she’s undoubtedly with her boyfriend,” and that these comments were a direct reflection of the gender stereotypes held by State officials and reveal how they did not taken her disappearance seriously. These arguments will not be considered as they were time-barred. 171 According the representatives, there are strong indications that Claudina Velásquez was a victim of sexual violence, such as the position of the clothes on the corpse and the semen found in her body. 172 In their final written arguments, the representatives argued, for the first time, that the sexual violence of which Claudina Velásquez was allegedly a victim, together with the fact that there was a high probability that she had been transferred from one place to another while still alive, constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that the State failed to prevent. These arguments will not be considered as they were time-barred. 169 36