57 153. Furthermore, this context, or at least its general aspects, cannot be separated from the general impunity existing in the country (supra para. 83). Consequently, the existence of this circumstance is an additional factor that contributes to the State’s awareness of a situation of risk. 154. Based on the above, the Court concludes that, as of the official report filed by Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, the State was aware of the dangerous situation of her daughter, María Isabel Veliz Franco. The State also knew, or should have known, that it was possible that the events described in the complaint were inserted in a context that increased the possibility of harm to the rights of that girl child. B.1.2. Possibilities of a diligent action by the State to prevent the risk and its implementation 155. Added to the foregoing, it has been established that there was a real possibility that María Isabel Veliz Franco was alive when her mother reported her disappearance to the authorities (supra para. 144). The lack of certainty in this regard can also be attributed to the State’s failure to determine the precise time of her death during the investigation. After receiving the report, and until the discovery of the body, the State did not take any substantive action to investigate what had happened or to avoid possible violations of the girl’s rights. In view of the uncertainty that existed at that time about María Isabel Veliz Franco’s situation, and in view of the risk that she ran, it was urgent to act diligently to ensure her rights.246 156. This conclusions is not changed by the State’s arguments concerning the guarantee of the right to life by its legal recognition, by regulation of the “mechanisms of paternal authority and guardianship” and by access to justice. The Court notes that the legal recognition of the right to life is, indeed, of fundamental importance, as well as the regulation of paternal authority and guardianship in relation to, inter alia, the rights of girl children.247 Despite this, States are not exempted from taking other necessary measures, in keeping with the circumstances, to ensure these rights.248 As the State itself has noted, it was when the State was advised of María Isabel’s disappearance that its obligation to intervene in her direct protection began. 157. Regarding access to justice, the representative has indicated that the State failed to comply with its “procedural obligations” in relation to the rights of María Isabel Veliz Franco owing to the lack of due diligence in the investigation since the outset, which has resulted in the above-mentioned facts remaining unpunished. Moreover, this includes the State’s actions in the initial hours following the report of the child’s disappearance. As regards the other measures taken during the investigation, these will be considered when analyzing the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees 249 and judicial protection250 in the case (infra para. 178 to 226). 246 In this regard, the Court has indicated that following a report of a disappearance or kidnapping, States must act promptly during the first hours and days. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 284, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 91. 247 In this regard, the Court has asserted that “States Parties undertake to ensure children such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of their parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for them and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.” Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, supra, para. 63.2. 248 The Court has indicated that “[i]n principle, the family should provide the best protection of children against abuse, abandonment and exploitation. And the State is under the obligation not only to decide and directly implement measures to protect children, but also to favor, in the broadest manner, development and strengthening of the family unit.” Nevertheless, on the same occasion, the Court asserted that the State, also, must provide measures of protection for children and implement them directly. Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/07, supra, para. 66. 249 Article 8(1) of the Convention stipulates: