the screams of Claudina Isabel, the abrupt interruption of her telephone call with [ZMB].” They emphasized that, when analyzing whether the State had violated its positive obligation to protect life, the European Court of Human Rights “has always assessed the reasonable nature of the measures taken by the authorities from the perspective of the knowledge they had when they were notified of the danger to the victim. The victim’s actual fate – which can only be known a posteriori – does not enter into consideration.” 104. The State stressed that, in this case, it is not being argued that a State agent had killed Claudina Velásquez or violated her integrity. It also alleged that the rights to life, personal integrity, and honor and dignity were protected by domestic law. In addition, regarding the time before Claudina Velásquez went missing, it argued that neither the Commission nor the representatives had argued that a threat against her existed, and the Court had acknowledged in the case of Veliz Franco et al. that Guatemala had taken steps to deal with the problem of violence against women prior to December 2001. With regard to the time before the discovery of the body, it asserted that it was following 3 a.m., when the police arrived, that it could be indicated that the State became aware of the disappearance of the presumed victim. It clarified that there is no evidence that an attempt was made to file a “missing person” report, and it could be assumed that the police, when they indicated that they would continue their patrol, were also going to continue looking for the young woman. In its final written arguments, the State emphasized that those police agents went immediately to the place where Claudina Velásquez had been seen for the last time and supported the family members in their search in the area of Colonia Panorama and nearby. Thus, the absence of a written report should be assessed as a simple formality, regardless of the conduct and attitude of the police agents. In addition, the State asserted that Claudina Velásquez was probably deceased before it became aware that she was missing, so that it had no possibility of avoiding or preventing the perpetration of a crime. “And, at best, the State would only have had one hour to find her, because her body appeared about two hours after the phone call to the police.” According to the State, the Court should take into account the reasonable nature of the time that it had to protect the life and integrity of Claudina Velásquez. Lastly, it added that the examinations conducted by the doctors of the Judiciary and of the Public Prosecution Service did not determine that Claudina Velásquez had suffered any violation of her integrity before her death. Consequently, the State asserted that it had not violated Articles 4, 5 and 11 of the American Convention,173 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. B. Considerations of the Court 105. In this case it has not been alleged that the State violated its obligation to respect the rights to life, personal integrity and honor and dignity. The dispute has been presented only with regard to the State’s alleged non-compliance with the obligation to ensure those rights; on the one hand, by failing to prevent their violation and, on the other, by failing to investigate the case effectively. In this chapter, the Court will only examine the State’s alleged non-compliance with its obligation to prevent the violation of the said rights. The alleged failure to comply with the obligation to investigate will be examined in the following chapter of this judgment. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to honor and dignity, the State also indicated that it had not taken a position that discriminated against the victim or her family, and no order had been issued that a victim should be categorized in order to determine the subsequent investigation procedure. These arguments will be examined in the following chapter on the State’s obligation to investigate. 173 37