“first moment” of analysis, includes the existence of a legal protection framework that is enforced effectively, prevention policies, and prevention practices and strategies; while the specific obligation of prevention or during its “second moment” of analysis, consists in the adoption of preventive measures in specific cases to avoid the perpetration of human rights violations when the State is aware that a person is in danger. 53. Based on the above, with regard to the “general’ and “specific” particularities of the obligation of prevention, or its “two moments” of analysis, it can be seen that, when analyzing the “first moment,” although the Court has established that, in a context of violence against women “international obligations impose on the State an enhanced responsibility with regard to the protection of women […] which includes the obligation of prevention,” it has also indicated that this does not impose on the State “unlimited responsibility for every wrongful act committed against them.”95 54. Even though I share this opinion, I also consider that, in reality, compliance with its obligation “to have an adequate legal protection framework that is enforced effectively and prevention policies and practices that permit efficient actions in response to reports, does not represent imposing an unlimited responsibility on the State; nor does the fact that the prevention strategy must be comprehensive and must prevent “the risk factors and, at the same time, reinforce the institutions so that they can provide an effective response to cases of violence against women” as the Court has established in its case law,96 aspects that form part of the general obligation of prevention or the “first moment” of the analysis. Thus, this “first moment” of the obligation of prevention has a determinant impact on the “second moment” in which the State prevention apparatus is applied to the cases of missing persons and gender-based violence that confront the State. 55. In the instant case, it should be noted that, faced with a persistent “context” of an escalation of violence against women and even though the Guatemalan State has taken some actions to address the problem,97 the insufficiency and ineffectiveness of such measures has meant that the country still does not have a mechanism, instrument or, in particular, a practice to search immediately for missing women, in accordance with the standard established by the Inter-American Court in the two previous cases on this matter,98 that could prevent the risk faced by Guatemalan women and girls given the escalation in the murder of women and the brutal circumstances in which it is perpetrated. 56. It is a factor of special concern that, as a result of the failure to adopt effective and sufficient measures to prevent violence against Guatemalan women, they continue to face a constant situation of danger, where the guarantee of their rights is nullified, as well as the rights of their next of kin, as in the instant case. and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 136. 95 I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 282, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 139. 96 I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 258, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 136. 97 As described in paras. 112 to 120 of the judgment. 98 I/A Court HR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. 15