56 corresponds to the “measures of protection” that Article 19 requires the State to take with regard to children. Regarding the State’s duties in relation to dealing with violence against women, the said obligation is also clear in the sphere of application of the Convention of Belém do Pará.244 Hence, it is also necessary in order to implement the measures and “policies” referred to in Article 7 of this treaty. Furthermore, the said obligation to obtain relevant information also arises from the stipulations in the respective treaties in relation to the international mechanisms to monitor the situation of different rights. Thus, the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará, independently of the system of individual petitions, establish in their Articles 41 to 43, and 10, respectively, the submission by the States of reports to international bodies. This is also true of other international treaties in force and to which Guatemala is a party, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 44);245 the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (article 18), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 40). 152. Evidently, it is not for the Court to evaluate whether Guatemala collected and systematized information regarding the situation of children’s rights, or whether the information that the State possesses is sufficient and appropriate to comply with its obligations. In terms of what concerns the Court and is pertinent for the analysis of the case sub examine, it is sufficient to note that the State has the duty to collect the basic information required to comply with its treaty-based obligations in relation to the rights of girl children and, in order to ensure such rights, it has an obligation to act with the greatest and most rigorous due diligence. Consequently, when there are clear indications of the existence of the said context and that the State was aware of it, the eventual lack of sufficient State information cannot adversely affect the binding nature of the abovementioned obligation to ensure rights. In this regard, the considerations mentioned above (supra paras. 73 to 81) reveal that, in December 2001, a context existed of an increase in violent criminality in Guatemala, including the murder of women, and there is evidence that the State knew about this. that “collection of sufficient and reliable data on children, disaggregated to enable identification of discrimination and/or disparities in the realization of rights, is an essential part of implementation [of the treaty].” Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment No. 5: General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5, November 27, 2003, paras. 27, 28, 33 and 48. Then, on June 2000, the General Assembly of the United Nations established a special Ad Hoc Committee to examine the evaluation of the progress made in the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. This Committee reaffirmed the commitment to the goals and objectives adopted in Beijing and indicated that Government should “continue to undertake research to develop a better understanding of the root causes of all forms of violence against women in order to design programmes and take measures towards eliminating those forms of violence.” Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly. General Assembly. Official records. Twenty-third special session. Supplement No. 3 (A/S-23/10/Rev.1). 244 In this regard, the Follow-up Mechanism on the Convention of Belém do Pará (MESECVI), has indicated with regard to Guatemala, in relation to the monitoring of the implementation of the Convention of Belém do Pará that: “[t]he greatest obstacle is the lack of well-organized information as required by the Mechanism; specifically in the first section on the chapter about Information and Statistics.” It also stated that, when it was asked about “femicide,” Guatemala forwarded a “report [that] shows a statistical table by type of crime. The figures seem too low compared to the actual situation, and the table does not show figures for killings of women or femicides. […] Practically all agencies fail to submit the requested data, holding that they have the information but have not processed it, or their information is not public.” Convention of Belém do Pará (MESECVI). MESECVI-II/doc.31/08. Second Conference of States parties, supra, pp. 56 and 57. 245 It is worth pointing out that, in 1994, the Committee on the Rights of the Child drew up guidelines for the presentation of the 1994 State reports. Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child. Seventh session. “Overview of the reporting procedures.” UN Doc. CRC/C/33. 24 October 1994. In July 2001, the same Committee expressed, with regard to Guatemala, its “concern that the collection of data is still focused on health and education and does not include all areas covered by the Convention [on the Rights of the Child]. It “recommend[ed] that the State party continue to develop a system to collect data and indicators reflecting the provisions of the Convention [on the Rights of the Child], disaggregated by gender, age, indigenous and minority groups, urban or rural area. This system should cover all children up to the age of 18 years, with specific emphasis on those who are particularly vulnerable.” Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Guatemala. Twenty-seventh session, 09/07/2001. CRC/C/15/Add.154, paras. 16 and 17.