30 Court takes these into account. In this regard, the Law to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Family Violence of November 28, 1996, and the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women (hereinafter also “Law against Femicide”) adopted in 2008 should be underlined (supra footnotes 68 and 93). 83. Despite the importance of the above, it is worth indicating that, in December 2001, and over the following years, there was a high level of general impunity in Guatemala in relation to different types of offenses and victims. In this context, most of the violent acts that resulted in the death of women remained unpunished. In this regard, in 2004, the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) stated that: [d]espite the efforts made to strengthen the justice administration system, now that the Mission’s work has ended, it can be concluded that there is no proportionality between that investment and the results obtained. Impunity continues to be a systematic and transversal phenomenon and despite the changes that have been described in different reports, the population continues to perceive that there is a situation of defenselessness and impunity.94 84. The evidence provided to the Court does not reveal that this situation (both the general and the specific one with regard to violent acts against women) have changed substantially to date. Thus, although there is data that indicates a decrease in the level of impunity in recent years, this continues to be very high (infra para. 86). This is pertinent in the instant case, because the information that the Court has shows that the investigation has been conducted in the years following 2001; it has not concluded, and it remains at the initial stage (infra para. 119). This is evident from the information described below. 85. As the State has indicated, in 2001, “a structural situation of impunity prevailed,” and “there were no guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of crimes” (supra paras. 17 and 18). For its part, in April 2001, the Inter-American Commission stated that prior to the period between 1998 and October 2000, “impunity persisted in many cases of human rights violations and common crime […] which is most worrying to the Commission, because it signifies that, with few exceptions, human rights are not subject to the judicial protection required under the American Convention.”95 Moreover, in 2003, citing documents prepared by the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), the Inter-American Commission indicated that “[b]etween October 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, there were 2,991 verified violations of due process; between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2000, the rights.” Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Republic of Guatemala. UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/GTM, 27 August 2001, para. 6 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 61, fs. 8339 to 8345). With regard to CONAPREVI and SEPREM, the following merits clarification: The State indicated that CONAPREVI was created by Government Decision 831-2000 and its amendments: Government Decisions 868-2000 and 417-2003. Its mandate is based on Article 13 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and on article 17 of the Law against Femicide and Other Forms of Violence against Women.” However, notwithstanding the information provided on its creation in 2000, CONAPREVI indicated that “[i]t was created in January 2001 as the highest-level institution responsible for promoting, assessing, and coordinating public policies aimed at reducing violence against women.” Coordinating Body for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Family Violence and Violence against Women (CONAPREVI), CONAPREVI Report to the Presidential Human Rights Commission (COPREDEH) in response to the request of the Inter-American Commission in the case of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, March 22, 2012, p. 2 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 9, fs. 14,055 to 14,071). SEPREM was created by Government Decision 200-2000, of May 17, 2000. According to the State, this agency of the Executive “assesses and coordinates public policies to promote the comprehensive advancement of women.” Expert witness Ana Carcedo Cabañas considered that “the mandates of CONAPREVI and SEPREM overlap,” and that this “problem” became more “complicate[d]” when “[t[he President subsequently appointed an ‘Anti-Femicide Commissioner.’” Cf. Expert opinion of Ana Carcedo Cabañas, supra. Despite the foregoing, the State indicated, in its answering brief of December 18, 2012, that, “at the time the facts [of the case] occurred [n December 2001,] there was no specific legislation or procedures for cases of violence against women, but [that in December 2012,] such legislation and procedures exist.” 94 United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), Final Report: “Asesoría en Derechos Humanos,” supra. 95 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights “Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala,” supra, para. 19.