98 passivity in Turkey was unintentional, the fact that it mainly affected women allowed it to conclude that the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother could be regarded as gender-based violence which is a form of discrimination against women. To reach this conclusion, the European Court applied the principle according to which once it is shown that the application of a specific rule clearly affects a higher percentage of women than men, the State must show that this is the result of objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of gender. The European Court found that the applicant lived where there was the highest number of reported victims of domestic violence, and that the victims were all women. Moreover, the great majority of these women were of the same origin, and the women victims faced problems when they reported the domestic violence, such as the fact that the police did not investigate the complaints, but assumed that the violence was a “family matter.”413 397. In the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, the Tribunal indicated that women detained or arrested “must not be the object of discrimination, and they must be protected from all forms of violence or exploitation”; that they “must be supervised and checked by female officers”; and that “special conditions” should be provided for pregnant and nursing women. Discrimination includes “violence directed against a woman because she is a woman, or that affects her in a disproportionate manner”; this includes “acts that inflict injuries or suffering of a physical, mental or sexual nature, threats of committing those acts, coercion and others forms of deprivation of freedom.”414 398. In the instant case, the Court finds that the State informed CEDAW that the “culture of discrimination” against women influenced the fact that “the murders [of women in Ciudad Juárez] were not perceived at the outset as a significant problem requiring immediate and forceful action on the part of the relevant authorities.” In addition, the State also indicated that this culture of discrimination against women was “based on the erroneous idea that women are inferior” (supra para. 132). 399. The Tribunal considers that these statements, which the State provided as evidence, concur with its acknowledgement of responsibility, in the sense that, in Ciudad Juárez there is a “culture of discrimination” that influenced the murders of women in Ciudad Juárez. Furthermore, the Court observes that, as established above, several international reports made a connection between the violence against women and the discrimination against women in Ciudad Juárez. 400. In addition, it has been established that, when investigating this violence, some authorities mentioned that the victims were “flighty” or that “they had run away with their boyfriends,” which, added to the State’s inaction at the start of the investigation, allows the Tribunal to conclude that, as a result of its consequences as regards the impunity in the case, this indifference reproduces the violence that it claims to be trying to counter, without prejudice to the fact that it alone constitutes discrimination regarding access to justice. The impunity of the crimes committed sends the message that violence against women is tolerated; this leads to their perpetuation, together with social acceptance of the phenomenon, the feeling women have that they are not safe, and their persistent mistrust in the system of administration of justice. In this regard, the Court underscores the words of the Inter-American Commission in its thematic report on “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence,” to the effect that: 413 ECHR, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Judgment of 9 June 2009, paras. 180, 191 and 200. 414 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 303.