56 boyfriend” or “out having a good time,” “[t]hey even blamed the mothers for allowing their daughters to go out alone or to go out at night.”229 203. The Tribunal underscores that the testimony of Mrs. Delgadillo Pérez and the statements by the victims’ mothers and next of kin concur with the context described by different national and international organizations in which public officials and authorities “minimized the problem” and showed a “lack of interest and willingness to take steps to resolve a serious social problem” (supra para. 154). 204. The representatives related the comments made by the officials who handled the cases to a policy that, at the time of the facts, made a distinction between “highrisk disappearances” and others that were not high risk. 205. Amnesty International indicated that “in 2001, the PGJECH [the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua] had put in practice a criterion of ‘high-risk disappearances,’ based merely on the victim’s behavior. If the disappeared woman had a stable routine, she could be a candidate for this type of search. The criterion was highly discriminatory and difficult to implement because, in 2003, only one case of disappearance was considered to be high risk.”230 206. Similarly, in 2003, the CNDH stated that “[t]hree years ago, the state Attorney General’s Office adopted a system of ‘high-risk’ disappearances, based on whether, prior to disappearing, the young woman had a stable routine and had [not] expressed her wish to leave her family.”231 Moreover, in 2003, CEDAW expressed its concern at the distinction made between disappearances of women who were considered at ‘high risk’ and others who were not.232 207. The Court also observes that the missing person’s form on which the next of kin reported the disappearance required information on the “sexual preferences” of the victims.233 208. The Tribunal considers that, in the instant case, the comments made by officials that the victims had gone off with a boyfriend or that they led a disreputable life, and the use of questions about the sexual preference of the victims constitute stereotyping. In addition, both the attitude and statements of the officials reveal that, at the very least, they were indifferent towards the next of kin of the victims and their complaints. 2.5. Discovery of the bodies 209. On November 6, 2001, the bodies of three women were found in a cotton field.234 These three women were subsequently identified as Mss. Ramos, González and 229 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folios 3494 and 3495. 230 According to an Amnesty International report, in March 2003, of the total 69 disappearances that were active, only one case in Ciudad Juárez was considered by the authorities to be “high risk.” This was the case of an 18-year-old girl disappeared since May 10, 2002 (Cf. Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2274). It should be noted that, according to the CNDH, an official letter of June 18, 2003, reveals “that the cases of [five persons] were considered ‘high risk’” (CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2204). 231 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2174. 232 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1950. 233 Missing Person Report No. 225/2001, supra note 170, folio 2609; Missing Person Report No. 234/2001, supra note 172, folio 2603, and Missing Person Report No. 241/2001, supra note 175, folio 2613. 234 Cf. Official record of the removal of the remains of unidentified bodies Nos. 188/2001, 189/2001 and 190/2001 issued by the Technical Office of Expert Services of the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua on November 6, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 35, 36 and 37, folios 2672 to 2675, 2677 to 2679 and 2681 to 2683).