national telephone companies, and other agencies and universities in the country had been repeatedly asked for detailed information on various telephone numbers. In response, information was provided that there was no record of calls made on August 12 and 13, 2005, text messages were not stored on their systems, the telephone numbers did not correspond to the numbers they had assigned, and there was no record of the personal data of the user or owner of the telephone line. Nevertheless, the requests for information continued up until at least March 2012, without any specific measure being taken to follow up on the answers received. On September 29, 2006, and May 20, 2009, laboratory tests were conducted to compare the genetic profile of Claudina Velásquez with that of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán and Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal, which determined that they were compatible, meaning that she was their biological daughter, and on September 2 and November 2, 2011, land registration information was obtained on some buildings located in Colonia Roosevelt (supra paras. 66, 68, 81 and 90). However, the Court is unclear why these procedures were conducted. 172. In conclusion, the Court has verified that more than 10 years have passed since the facts of the case and since the investigation started, and the truth of what happened has still not been determined. The investigation procedures were belated and repetitive, thereby affecting the results. Moreover, in the case of some procedures, it is unclear why they were conducted. Finally, other procedures have continued over time without any concrete results. The lack of due diligence in this case has violated the right of access to justice of the next of kin of Claudina Velásquez, within a reasonable time, in violation of judicial guarantees. B.3. Discrimination due to stereotyping and an investigation that lacked a gender perspective 173. Regarding the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination, the Court has indicated that the “notion of equality springs directly from the oneness of the human species and is linked to the essential dignity of the individual. That principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority. It is equally irreconcilable with that notion to characterize a group as inferior and treat it with hostility or otherwise subject it to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights which are accorded to others not so classified.”267 At the current stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has become part of jus cogens. It underlies the legal structure of national and international public order and permeates the whole legal order. States must abstain from acting in any way that is addressed, directly or indirectly, at creating situation of discrimination de jure or de facto.268 174. The Court has indicated that, while the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention refers to the duty of States to respect and ensure “without discrimination” the rights contained in this treaty, Article 24 protects the right to “equal protection of the law.”269 Article 24 of the American Convention prohibits discrimination, de jure or de facto, not only with regard to the rights established therein, but also with regard to all the laws enacted by the State and their enforcement. In other words, it is not limited to reiterating the provisions of Article 1(1) of the Convention regarding the State obligation to respect and ensure, without discrimination, the rights recognized in this treaty, but establishes a right that also entails an obligation for the State to respect and ensure the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the safeguard of Cf. Proposed Amendment to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 55, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 216. 268 Cf. Juridical Status of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2013. Series A No. 18, paras. 101, 103 and 104, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, paras. 216 and 220. 269 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Contentious Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 217. 267 62