59 diligence, and referred to the facts of the case. 251 It also indicated that the authorities should have preserved specific evidence if rape was suspected in keeping with the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions; hence the State had not complied with the minimum standards established in this Manual and by the case law of the Court. In addition, it mentioned that, in the proceedings before the Commission, the State had acknowledged its responsibility “for the lack of due diligence in the investigation into the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco, specifically by virtue of its failure to conduct certain forensic tests on the body, the unwarranted delay in the investigation caused by the dispute over jurisdiction, and because no effective precautionary measure was taken to secure the presence of [the] suspect in the murder.” In this regard, it underscored that, for nine months, from March to December 2002, the investigation was brought to a halt owing to a jurisdictional dispute among the authorities. 162. The Commission also indicated that the attitudes of the State officials, as reflected in their behavior toward Rosa Elvira Franco, are evidence of stereotyping and would have contributed to the lack of due diligence in the investigation. The Commission concluded that, “in the instant case, the State failed to comply with its duty to act with due diligence to conduct a proper investigation of the facts surrounding the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco, to punish those responsible, and thereby avoid impunity” in violation of Articles “7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention, together with […] Article 1(1) of this international instrument,” as well as in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 24 of this treaty to the detriment of her family members. 163. The representative indicated that main errors and omissions of the authorities in the investigation into what happened to María Isabel Veliz Franco relate to the stigmatization of the victim. In this regard, it referred to this Court’s case law and considered that the guidelines established in cases of violence against women such as this one “constitute irrevocable standards to ensure access to justice for women and girls.” The representative also referred to the report of the Inter-American Commission on “Access to Justice for Women Victims of Sexual Violence in Mesoamerica,” and to various experts and international organizations252 that have documented the problem of sexual violence, prejudices and discriminatory stereotypes that tend to make the judicial response biased. It considered that the investigation into what happened to María Isabel was paradigmatic in relation to [such] practices, as well as the consequences that they have for the investigation and punishment of those responsible.” It added that “the discriminatory bias with which the investigators in this case acted resulted in the inquiry into María Isabel’s death being considered a very low priority, which was reflected in the negligent way in which the initial steps were taken, and the numerous acts and omissions of the authorities that, to date, have resulted in the facts remaining in the most absolute impunity.” 164. The representative asserted that the other error was that the State “did not act with 251 Among others, relating to the removal of the body, in the site inspection report which indicates that the crime scene had already been contaminated, that the inspection was not conducted with the necessary rigor, as important details are missing about how the body was found, the condition of the clothing, and whether there were bloodstains, fibers, threads or other clues. The inspection report does not say whether the site was examined for footprints or any other relevant evidence; nor does it indicate the measures taken by the investigators and the nature of the evidence collected. The police report documented that there was a large black plastic bag, but this was not reported by the Assistance Prosecutor; the chain of custody of the evidence was not respected; there were contradictions and omissions in the description of the position of the body; the autopsy was incomplete and did not indicate the means, place and time of death; if rape was suspected, specific evidence was not preserved; there was no follow up on a telephone call made by an anonymous informant who provided information on the murder, and it was not until July 18, 2003, that a building was searched; the report of the calls made from the telephone that María Isabel was carrying was not examined diligently, and the testimony of witnesses was not obtained promptly. 252 Namely: Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM), the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR), and the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), and Amnesty International.