32 of María Isabel Véliz Franco’s right to equal protection. The European Court has held that the State’s failure to protect women from violence is a violation of their right to equal protection, and need not be 170 intentional. 141. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly held that States “must exercise due diligence to prevent and investigate acts of violence against women and girls and punish the perpetrators, to eliminate impunity and to provide protection to the victims, and that failure to do so 171 violates and impairs or nullifies the enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.” 142. Despite, the efforts that the Guatemalan State has made in recent years to address the problem of violence against women in that country, the IACHR finds that at the time the events in this case occurred, the State had not adopted the necessary measures and policies, in keeping with the obligations it undertook upon its ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to ensure effective investigation and punishment of violent acts committed against the women of Guatemala. In its decision in the case of Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes the IACHR underscored the fact that in order for the State to prove that it complied with its obligation to act with due diligence, in keeping with Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, evidence of the measures taken to eliminate society’s general tolerance of 172 violence against women will not suffice. The State must demonstrate that it has a real commitment to 173 eradicating the kind of impunity that exists in the case sub examine. Nine years after the disappearance and death of María Isabel Véliz Franco, the case is still emblematic of the problem of impunity. 143. The petitioners also contend that a number of police reports on the investigation contain comments that do not shed light on the case, but do discredit the victim and her mother. In response to those assertions, the State maintains that the statements that appear in the record that are denigrating with respect to the victim and her mother are not a position of the State; instead, they are a transcript of the statements made by witnesses. On this subject, the IACHR has written that the influence of discriminatory socio-cultural patterns can adversely affect an investigation of a case and the assessment 174 of any evidence compiled. The Court, for its part, has written that the creation and use of stereotypes 175 becomes one of the causes and consequences of gender violence practiced against women. 144. In a hearing held by the IACHR, expert witness Claudia Paz observed that in the statements made by witnesses, pejorative comments appear repeatedly and are about the victim’s lifestyle. The idea is to create an image that will put the blame for what happened on the victim and her family. She also said that these comments become lines that the investigation will pursue. The expert stated that “there are peculiarities unique to cases involving violence against women, some of which are cultural –like sexist biases and characteristics in the investigations conducted by officials, prosecutors 176 and police in most cases involving violence against women in Guatemala.” 145. At the IACHR hearing, Rosa Elvira Franco said that the authorities were not interested in investigating the case. She remarked that “I often went to the Prosecution Unit 5; at Unit 32 they didn’t 170 See, IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. (United States), July 21, 2011. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02 of June 9, 2009, paragraph 191. 171 United Nations, resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly, Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, A/RES/64/137, February 11, 2010, and resolution A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1 of July 16, 2010. 172 IACHR, Merits Report, N˚ 54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paragraph 57. 173 IACHR, Merits Report No. 54/01, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paragraph 57. 174 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paragraph 151. 175 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 401. 176 IACHR, Hearing Minutes No. 5, Case 12.578, María Isabel Véliz Franco, Guatemala, March 20, 2009.