31 e. take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to amend or repeal existing laws and regulations or to modify legal or customary practices which sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women; f. establish fair and effective legal procedures for women who have been subjected to violence which include, among others, protective measures, a timely hearing and effective access to such procedures; g. establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies; and h. adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to this Convention. 137. In the case of María da Penha v. Brazil, the IACHR found that among the most important principles enshrined in the Convention of Belém do Pará are the duties to investigate, prosecute and “the 166 obligation to prevent these degrading practices.” The IACHR also established that judicial ineffectiveness in cases involving violence against women creates a climate of impunity that invites violence and discrimination against women “since society sees no evidence of willingness by the State, 167 as the representative of the society, to take effective action to sanction such acts.” For its part, the Court has held that when crimes committed against women go unpunished, this “sends the message that violence against women is tolerated; this leads to their perpetuation, together with social acceptance of the phenomenon, the feeling women have that they are not safe, and their persistent mistrust in the 168 system of administration of justice.” In the case of González et al. v. Mexico, the Court held that that violence against women is a form of discrimination and that the State violated its obligation not to discriminate in relation to the obligation to guarantee the victim’s rights, among them her right to access 169 to justice. 138. In the instant case, the IACHR observes that the Guatemalan State was to have acted upon its obligations under the Convention of Belém do Pará, as this was a case of violence against a woman, specifically the disappearance and subsequent death of a girl. The disappearance was reported to the authorities of the State. Even so, from the time the missing person’s report was filed, the State authorities failed to act with due diligence to investigate the disappearance and subsequent death of María Isabel Véliz Franco, in violation of its obligations under the Convention of Belém do Pará in cases of this type. 139. Furthermore, the analysis of the State’s observance of articles 4, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention found that the irregularities committed by the Guatemalan State in the investigation of this case and the lack of due diligence when the victim was reported missing; the fact that tests were not done to determine whether the victim had been raped; the flawed handling and analysis of the evidence collected; the errors made in handling and preserving the crime scene and the collection of expert evidence; delays in taking steps such as tracing the phone calls made to and from the victim’s cell phone; and the unwarranted delay caused by the dispute over jurisdiction, are a violation of the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The records indicate that the authorities did not investigate the victim’s death as a case of gender violence; and despite the fact that it has ratified the Convention of Belém do Pará, it has not put into practices measures, protocols or directives on how to properly investigate violence of this kind. 140. This lack of due diligence with respect to a case of violence against women is a form of discrimination, a failure on the State’s part to comply with its obligation not to discriminate, and a violation 166 IACHR, Merits Report No. 54/01, María Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paragraph 56. 167 IACHR, Merits Report No. 54/01, María Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paragraph 56. 168 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 400. 169 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 402.