65 248. The Tribunal must now analyze whether the State took adequate steps to prevent the disappearance, abuses and death suffered by the three victims, and whether it investigated these facts with due diligence. In other words, whether it complied with the obligation to guarantee Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, which complements the international corpus juris as regards the prevention and punishment of violence against women,266 and whether it allowed access to justice to the next of kin of the three victims, as stipulated in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 4.2.1. Obligation of prevention in relation to the right to personal liberty, to personal integrity and to life of the victims 249. The Commission argued that the State “did not adopt reasonable measures to protect the life and prevent the murders” of the victims “although it was aware of the imminent risk that they would be murdered, as they had been reported as missing, as of the date of the facts.” Similarly, it indicated that the information provided by the State during the procedures before it, “does not indicate any implementation of norms and practices aimed at guaranteeing that there would be an immediate search order after the missing person reports were received, or that there were any sanctions for the State officials’ deficient response to the reports.” 250. The representatives indicated that “at the time the victims disappeared, the Mexican authorities were aware that there was a real and immediate risk to their life,” “because the cases described here form part of the pattern of violence against women and girls, and the State did not exercise due diligence by taking the necessary measures to avoid it.” 251. The State argued that it had “complied with its obligations of prevention, investigation and punishment in each case.” 252. The Court has established that the obligation of prevention encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure the safeguard of human rights, and that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act, which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is one of means or conduct, and failure to comply with it is not proved merely because the right has been violated.267 253. The Convention of Belém do Pará defines violence against women (supra para. 226) and its Article 7(b) obliges the States Parties to use due diligence to prevent, punish and eliminate this violence. 254. Since 1992, CEDAW established that “States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation.”268 The 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of the General Assembly of the United Nations urged the States to “[e]xercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in 266 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 276. 267 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 257, para. 166; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 149, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 30, para. 63. 268 Cf. CEDAW, General recommendation 19: Violence against women, 11° session, 1992, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 84 (1994), para. 9.