120 493. The Tribunal observes that, in their briefs, neither the Commission nor the representatives challenged the existence or the validity of the above organizations and programs mentioned by the State, or the State’s evaluation of each one. Moreover, neither the Commission nor the representatives provided sufficient arguments on practical problems encountered with the actions implemented by the State to date, or clarified why the series of measures adopted by the State cannot be considered an “integral, coordinated policy.” In this regard, the Court recalls that, under Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission must indicate its claims for reparations and costs in the application, together with the justification and the pertinent conclusions. This obligation to provide the rationale and the justification is not fulfilled by general requests with no factual or legal arguments or evidence that would allow the Tribunal to examine their purpose, reasonableness and scope. The same applies to the representatives. * * * 494. The Court appreciates the efforts made by the Mexican State to formally adapt its legislation and other legal actions and institutions, and to implement different actions designed to combat gender-based violence, both in the State of Chihuahua and at the federal level, as well as its efforts to adapt its criminal justice system at the local and federal levels. These advances are structural indicators of the adoption of norms that, in principle, are aimed at tackling the violence and discrimination against women in a context such as the one that has been proved in the instant case. 495. Nevertheless, the Tribunal does not have sufficient, recent information to be able to assess whether these laws, institutions and actions have: (i) resulted in the effective prevention and investigation of cases of violence against women and genderbased murder; (ii) ensured that those responsible have been prosecuted and sanctioned, and (iii) ensured that reparation has been made to the victims; all this bearing in mind the context established in the instant case. Thus, for example, none of the parties offered precise information on the occurrence of similar crimes to those of this case from 2006 to 2009.478 In particular, the Court is unable to rule on the existence of an integral policy to overcome the situation of violence against women, discrimination and impunity, without information on any structural defects that crosscut these policies, any problems in their implementation, and their impact on the effective enjoyment of their rights by the victims of this violence. In addition, the Tribunal does not have result indicators in relation to how the policies implemented by the State could constitute reparations with a gender perspective to the extent that they: (i) question and, by means of special measures, are able to modify, the status quo that causes and maintains violence against women and gender-based murders; (ii) have clearly led to progress in overcoming the unjustified legal, political, social, formal and factual inequalities that cause, promote or reproduce the factors of gender-based discrimination, and (iii) raise the awareness of public officials and society on the impact of the issue of discrimination against women in the public and private spheres. 496. The fact that the Commission, the representatives and the State have not provided sufficient arguments prevents the Court from ruling on whether the public 478 In their final written arguments of June 2009, the representatives indicated that “from 2008 to date, 24 girls and women of Ciudad Juárez have disappeared; there is no information on their whereabouts and the authorities have not taken sufficiently exhaustive and conscientious measures to find them,” according to “an estimated figure based on official information recorded” by the NGO, Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa A.C. However, no specific information was provided to the Court on what this official information was, or the methodology used to obtain this figure. Moreover, no relevant documentary evidence was attached.