58 B.2) Conclusion 158. Based on the above, the Inter-American Court concludes that Guatemala violated its obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights to life and to personal integrity recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the rights of the child established in Article 19 of the Convention and to the general obligation to ensure rights without discrimination, established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as the obligations contemplated in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of María Isabel Veliz Franco. IX JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, EQUAL PROTECTION AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS, AND TO THE OBLIGATION TO PREVENT, PUNISH AND ERADICATE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 159. In its Merits Report, the Commission indicated that the Convention of Belém do Pará “stipulates that the obligation to act with due diligence, has a special connotation in cases of violence against women,” and its Article 7 establishes a series of immediate and supplementary State obligations in order to achieve effective prevention, investigation, punishment and reparation in cases of violence against women. The Commission also referred to the judgment in the case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), which indicated that “the lack of due diligence that leads to impunity engenders further incidents of the very violence that was to be targeted, and is itself a form of discrimination in access to justice.” In the instant case, it stated that “[w]hile the State has taken and continues to take measures, it has not complied with its obligation to act with due diligence to identify the persons responsible for the disappearance and murder of María Isabel Veliz Franco. Thus, no one has been made to answer for this act of violence, which has the effect of creating a climate conducive to chronic recidivism of acts of violence against women.” 160. The Commission argued that, from the time the report that María Isabel was missing was presented, the State authorities did not act with due diligence to investigate her disappearance and subsequent death as a case of gender-based violence, contrary to the obligations imposed by the Convention of Belém do Pará in this type of case. It considered that this lack of due diligence represented a form of discrimination, as well as a violation of the right to equal protection. It indicated that, despite the efforts made by the State in recent years to address the problem of violence against women, “at the time the events occurred, the State had not adopted the necessary measures and policies, in keeping with the obligations it undertook upon its ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to ensure effective investigation and punishment of violent acts committed against the women of Guatemala.” 161. It stated that, in this case, a series of irregularities occurred during the investigation into the disappearance and subsequent death of María Isabel owing to the lack of due Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 250 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.