the merits. In addition, it will take into account the State’s arguments on the “prevention and punishment measures” taken in order to “eradicate violence against women.” C.3.1. Educational programs on non-discrimination and violence against women 245. The Commission asked the Court to require the State to introduce reforms in the State’s educational programs, starting in the early formative years, to promote respect for women as equals and also respect for their rights to non-violence and non-discrimination. Meanwhile, the representatives asked the Court to require the State to establish, in the Universidad Nacional de San Carlos de Guatemala and/or other public higher education establishments, a course on women’s rights entitled “Cátedra Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz” to honor her memory in her alma mater, and contribute to the dissemination of women’s rights in Guatemala and, thereby, to the eradication of violence against women. The course should be offered every year starting with the academic year following notification of the judgment in this case. 246. The State indicated that its educational programs “already include promotion of respect for women as equals, and also their rights.” According to Guatemala, for more than a decade, the Ministry of Education has promoted programs that have contributed to enhancing the dignity of girls and women, and cited in this regard: (1) the program “Educating girls”; (b) the pilot project “To educate girls”; (c) the project “A new world for girls”; (d) the campaign “Educated girl, mother of development”; (e) the program of “Scholarships for indigenous girls in rural areas”; (f) “Global project for educating girls”; (g) the program for “Bilingual education,” and (h) the program to provide comprehensive care for children under the age of seven years. It also stressed that the design and implementation of the strategy of Comprehensive Education on Sexuality and Prevention of Violence is carried out by the General and Departmental Directorates with the support of the Unit for Gender Equity with Ethnic Relevance attached to the Educational Planning Directorate. In this regard, the State considered that the measures requested by the Commission and the representatives “had already been implemented.” 247. The Court has verified that the facts of this case occurred in a context of an escalation of homicidal violence against women in Guatemala, that the levels of such violence continue to be elevated and that there has even been an increase in the level of violence against women and the cruelty inflicted on the bodies of many of the victims (supra paras. 45 and 48). When this type of situation exists, the Court has ordered the implementation of educational programs addressed at the general population to overcome discrimination against women. 326 248. Even though Guatemala has indicated that it already has educational programs to promote respect for women’s rights, the Court notes that, of the programs described by Guatemala, only one addresses the prevention of violence against women: the “strategy” for “prevention of violence,” presumably carried out by the General and Departmental Directorates with the support of the Unit for Gender Equity with Ethnic Relevance attached to the Educational Planning Directorate. However, the State has not provided any information on the content, scope or implementation of this “strategy.” Consequently, bearing in mind the situation of discrimination and violence against women that has been verified, the Court requires the State, within a reasonable time, to incorporate into the curriculum of the national education system, at all educational levels, a permanent program of education on the need to eradicate gender discrimination, gender stereotyping, and violence against women in Guatemala, in light of international law in this regard and the case law of this Court. To this end, for three years, the State must present an annual report indicating the actions taken to this end. The Court does not Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para., 543. 326 80