27 119. As previously pointed out, the State acknowledged, in the Commission’s presence, its responsibility for the lack of due diligence in the investigation into the death of María Isabel Véliz 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 take to secure the presence of Osbel Airosa as a suspect in the murder. 120. Even so, the State contends that it did follow up on the call made by an anonymous informant who provided information on the murder. A search was conducted at the address given by the anonymous informant and no mistake was made with respect to the address where the search was conducted, since 6th Street 5-24 in Nueva Montserrat is located in zone 7 of the Municipality of Mixco and is no longer part of zone 7 of the capital city to which it is adjacent. It also asserts that there was no delay in conducting the first visual inspection of the vacant lot where the body of the alleged victim was found. It asserts that three visual inspections were conducted, the first of which was on December 18, 2001, the day after the anonymous phone call about the location of the body was received. 121. Here, the IACHR observes that, as shown in the section on “established facts”, on July 8, 2003 a search was in fact conducted at the address to which the vehicle from which the victim’s body had been removed, had supposedly driven. As this lead might have been an important one for solving this case, the IACHR believes that the search should have been conducted immediately rather than a year and a half after the body was discovered. 122. As for the visual inspection, the IACHR has already gone over the mistakes the State made during the first visual inspection, which caused it to miss valuable information that could never be retrieved on subsequent inspections. As for the dispute over jurisdiction, inasmuch as the State has acknowledged its responsibility in this regard, the Commission will not examine it further. Similarly, because the State acknowledged responsibility with respect to its failure to take a precautionary measure to secure the presence of a suspect, the IACHR will not examine this point either. 123. While 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 Véliz Franco. Thus, no one has been made to answer for this act of violence, which has 148 the effect of creating a climate conducive to chronic recidivism of acts of violence against women. 124. The IACHR has singled out the investigation as the critical phase in cases involving violence against women and has written that the “importance of due investigation cannot be overestimated, as deficiencies often prevent and/or obstruct further efforts to identify, prosecute and 149 punish those responsible,” which is precisely what happened in the instant case. Therefore, the Commission observes that in this case, the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate, with the necessary diligence, the violations committed of María Isabel Véliz Franco’s human rights. 125. Impunity with respect to human rights violations has been defined as “the overall lack of investigation, tracking down, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violating the rights protected by the American Convention.” The Inter-American Court has written that the State has …continuation 148 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 454. I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 176, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paragraph 173. 149 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, Introduction, paragraph 38.