19 84. The Inter-American Court has written that States should adopt comprehensive measures 94 to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women. In particular, they should have an appropriate legal framework of protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and 95 practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to complaints. The prevention strategy should also be comprehensive; in other words, it should prevent the risk factors and, at the same time, 96 strengthen the institutions that can respond effectively in cases of violence against women. The IACHR has written that the State should adopt preventive measures in specific cases in which it is evident that certain women and girls may be victims of violence. This should take into account that, in cases of violence against women, the States also have, in addition to the generic obligations established in the American Convention, an enhanced obligation since the Convention of Belém do Pará entered into force. 85. Moreover, the Court has established that the obligation of prevention encompasses all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that ensure protection of human rights, and that any possible violation of these rights is considered and treated as an unlawful act, which, as such, may result in the punishment of the person who commits it, as well as the obligation to compensate the victims for the harmful consequences. It is also clear that the obligation to prevent is one of means or conduct, and failure to comply with it is not proved merely because the right has been 97 violated. 86. Using these precedents as a frame of reference, the Commission will now consider whether the facts described compromise the State’s international responsibility by virtue of its failure to prevent and respond. The petitioners contend that the Guatemalan State has failed to comply with its duty to guarantee the human rights recognized with respect to this right “by failing to conduct a serious, thorough and effective investigation aimed at identifying and punishing the persons responsible for [the 98 victim’s] death.” The State, for its part, contends that while it acknowledges blame for the fact that certain tests were not done or were not done promptly, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has “investigated by 99 every means within its reach and will continue to do so.” 87. Nothing in the court record indicates that once the report that the girl was missing was filed, the State acted promptly and set in motion effective and immediate measures to find the girl alive; for example, no statement was taken from her mother that might have shed light on investigative leads to follow; no one went to the place where she was last seen alive; and the last persons to see her alive on the day of her disappearance and/or those persons closest to the victim were not interviewed. There is no record of any search being set in motion between the time the girl was reported missing and the time the alleged victim’s body was found. 88. As the Inter-American Court wrote, States should not merely abstain from violating rights, but must adopt positive measures to be determined based on the specific needs of protection of the subject of law, either because of his or her personal situation or because of the specific circumstances in 100 which he or she finds himself. In the instant case, given the fact that the State was aware that María 94 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 258. 95 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 258. 96 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 258. 97 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 252. 98 The petitioners’ communication of January 14, 2007, paragraph 67. 99 The State’s note No. P-1207-07.FLR/KM/YL, dated September 12, 2007. 100 I/A Court H.R. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paragraph 243.