191. In this case, the Court noted that the crime scene was not processed appropriately, or with the thoroughness required to achieve positive results in the investigation; there were errors in the collection, documentation and preservation of evidence, and irregularities in the forensic medicine examination, in the autopsy and in the respective autopsy report. In addition, the investigation procedures were belated, repetitive and have extended over time and, in the case of some procedures, it is not clear why they were conducted (supra paras. 168 and 172). These deficiencies in the investigation are not a casual fact, or collateral to the investigation; they are a direct consequence of a common practice of the investigative authorities to make a stereotypical assessment of the victim, added to the absence of administrative controls on the activity of the State agents who intervened and acted in the investigation based on these stereotypes and prejudices. All this meant that the case was not investigated diligently or with rigor, keeping it in impunity up until today, and this constituted a form of gender-based discrimination in access to justice. 192. That said, it may be assumed that the violent death of Claudina Velásquez Paiz was an expression of gender-based violence in order to apply Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará293 to the case, taking into account: a) the indications that she had probably been raped: she was not wearing her brassiere, which had been placed between her jeans and her hips, the zipper of her jeans was undone, her belt removed, and her blouse on back to front; also the presence of semen in the victim’s vagina was recorded (supra paras. 56 and 67); b) the injuries to the body: an injury around her eye and the left side of her cheek caused before death, and scratches to her right knee and side, apparently caused after death (supra para. 56), and c) the context of an escalation of homicidal violence against women in Guatemala; the exacerbation of violence against women and the cruelty inflicted on the bodies of many of victims in a context of different forms of violence against women (supra paras. 45 and 48). 193. It should be pointed out that the two police agents who went to the site where Claudina Velásquez’s body was found were interviewed and, by October 24, 2005, it was on record that they had made specific statements that the victim had possibly been raped. The first agent indicated that “her brassiere was full of blood [and] she was not wearing it, but rather it was inside her jeans, so that [he] presumed that the young woman had been raped.” The second agent indicated that “it was presumed that she had been raped because her underclothes were stained with blood and she was not wearing her brassiere.”294 Article 1 of the Convention of Belém do Pará defines violence against women as: “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.” The Court has established previously that “CEDAW […] has indicated that ‘violence against women is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.’” Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, paras. 143, 401 and 395. In addition, the Court has indicated that “not every violation of a human right committed against a woman necessarily entails a violation of the provisions of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 279. This does not mean that, in relation to the investigation of acts perpetrated against women, the application of the Convention of Belém do Pará depends on the absolute certainty that the act investigated constituted violence against women in the terms of that Convention. In this regard, it should be emphasized that it is by complying with the obligation to investigate established in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará that, in many cases, it can be ascertained whether or not the act investigated constituted violence against women. Consequently, compliance with this obligation cannot be dependent on that certainty and, in order to give rise to the obligation to investigate in the terms of the Convention of Belém do Pará, it is sufficient that the act in question has characteristics that, judged reasonably, indicate the possibility that it is an act of violence against women. Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, footnote 254. 294 Cf. Interview with the two police agents who were present at the site where Claudina Velásquez’s body was found, Investigation report dated October 24, 2005 (evidence file, folio 48). 293 68