67 residential dwellings. Improving the safety of public transport and routes travelled by women, such as to schools and educational institutions or to wells, fields and factories, is part of prevention work.275 258. The foregoing reveals that States should adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women. In particular, they should have an appropriate legal framework for protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to the respective complaints. The prevention strategy should also be comprehensive; in other words, it should prevent the risk factors and, at the same time, strengthen the institutions that can provide an effective response in cases of violence against women. Furthermore, the State should adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that certain women and girls may be victims of violence. This should take into account that, in cases of violence against women, the States also have the general obligation established in the American Convention, an obligation reinforced since the Convention of Belém do Pará came into force. The Court will now examine the measures adopted by the State prior to the facts of this case to comply with its obligation of prevention. 259. The State argued that “based on the context of violence in Ciudad Juárez acknowledged by the government authorities, all measures considered necessary to avoid the repetition of acts of violence against women have been and continue to be adopted.” The State also indicated that it had provided evidence of “improvements in institutional infrastructure and capacity in order to ensure that investigations are effective in cases of violence against women, and to provide constant judicial monitoring,” as well as of “numerous programs designed to eradicate discriminatory socio-cultural patterns against women, such as comprehensive prevention policies, programs to provide services to victims of crime, civil society participation, and training for public officials.” 260. The Commission indicated that there was an “absence of effective State measures regarding the disappearance and subsequent death of the victims” and that “at the time the facts occurred, the State had not adopted the policies or measures necessary for guaranteeing the effective prevention, investigation and punishment of violent acts directed against women.” 261. The representatives alleged that, in general, “none of the limited measures taken by the authorities from 1993 to 2001, or the financial resources allocated, can be considered effective measures to prevent violence against women and girls.” 262. From the evidence provided to the Tribunal, it is clear, firstly, that Mexico created the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, within the Office of the Attorney General of Chihuahua (hereinafter also referred to as the “FEIHM” due to its name in Spanish) in 1998,276 in response to CNDH Recommendation No. 44/98.277 According to the State, the Special 275 United Nations, General Assembly, In-depth study on all forms of violence against women. Report of the Secretary-General, Sixty-first session, A/61/122/Add.1, July 6, 2006, para. 352. 276 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1922; CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168, and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2265. 277 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folio 1963. According to the CNDH, this Prosecutor’s Office was created because “the investigations into all the murders that occurred in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, from 1993 to 1996, were being conducted by the Homicide Unit of the Judicial Police of that state” and according to Amnesty International, “it was a request that the local organizations had been making since 1996, owing to the inability of the [Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua] to respond to the situation” (Cf. CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folio 2168 and Amnesty International, Intolerable killings, supra note 64, folio 2278).