substantial dimension, which determines “the adoption of positive promotional measures in favor of groups historically discriminated or marginalized due to the factors referred to in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.”298 160. The Court considers that rape is a form of sexual violence.299 Both the Belém do Pará Convention and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its supervisory body have recognized the link between violence against women and discrimination.300 The Court has already highlighted the special vulnerability of girls to sexual violence, especially in the family sphere, as well as the greater risk of facing obstacles and discrimination in access to justice due to their condition of being both a woman and a girl (supra para. 100). In this case, said violence was carried out by a private individual. However, this does not exempt the State from responsibility since it was called upon to adopt comprehensive policies to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women, taking particularly into account cases in which the woman is under 18 years of age. 161. The Court reiterates that judicial ineffectiveness in the face of individual cases of violence against women fosters an environment of impunity that facilitates and promotes the repetition of acts of violence in general and sends a message according to which violence against women can be tolerated and accepted, which favors its perpetuation and the social acceptance of the phenomenon, women’s sensation of feeling unsafe, as well as their persisting mistrust in the system of administration of justice.301 This inefficiency or indifference constitutes in itself discrimination against women in access to justice. 162. In this regard, as mentioned above, the State must reinforce guarantees of protection during the investigation and criminal proceedings, when the case refers to the rape of a girl, especially if this sexual violence was carried out in the family sphere. In these cases, the obligations of due diligence and adoption of protective measures must be heightened. Furthermore, investigations and criminal proceedings must be directed by the State with a gender and childhood perspective, based on the victim's status as a girl and taking into account the aggravated nature of the rape, as well as its possible effects. 163. In this context, the use of gender stereotypes by officials and authorities of the justice system during a judicial process violates the aforementioned obligation that States have to adopt a gender perspective in criminal investigations and processes. The Court has reiterated that the gender stereotype refers to a preconception of attributes, behaviors or characteristics possessed or roles that are or should be performed by men and women respectively,302 and that it is possible to associate the subordination of women to practices based on socially dominant gender stereotypes and socially persistent gender norms. Its creation and use becomes one of the causes of gender violence against women, conditions that worsen when they are reflected, implicitly or explicitly, in Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil, supra, para. 199, and Case of Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 6, 2021. Series C No. 440, para. 135. See also, Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422. Para. 66. 298 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 359, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 182. 299 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 394 and 395; the Convention of Belém do Pará, preamble and Article 6; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Article 1, and Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against Women, UN Doc. A/47/38, January 29, 1992, paras. 1 and 6. 300 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 388 and 400, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 125. 301 302 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 123. 53