33 even find María’s case file; the prosecutor turned his seat around and sat with his back facing me, without 177 ever even speaking to me, not even to say “wait a minute.” Also in the case file is a communication from Rosa Elvira Franco in which she recounts that approximately one week before August 28, 2004, she went to inquire about the progress made in the investigation; the Deputy Prosecutor, Mrs. Ileana Elizabeth Girón Delgado, “took out my daughter’s file from the last of her cabinets, in the presence of the person who was her boss the time, Lic. Luis Morales del Cid; she told me ‘they killed your daughter because she was a tart, a prostitute’; she even made gestures with her shoulders and head, laughing at my daughter and my pain. Lic. Morales del Cid grabbed his head, but didn’t apologize. He just stood by 178 and watched. She began to laugh loudly […].” 146. The IACHR considers that in the instant case, the attitudes of the state officials, as reflected in their behavior toward Rosa Elvira Franco, are evidence of stereotyping and would have contributed to the lack of due diligence in the investigation. 147. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the State of Guatemala did not comply with its duty to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish the acts of violence suffered by María Isabel Véliz Franco, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention, and as required by the general obligation to respect and ensure rights undertaken in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. As it found in the preceding section with respect to María Isabel Véliz Franco’s rights under articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the State failed to comply with its duty to act with due diligence to conduct a proper investigation of and punish the persons responsible for the disappearance and death of María Isabel Véliz Franco and thus avoid impunity, in violation of articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rosa Franco Sandoval (mother), Leonel Enrique Véliz Franco (brother), José Roberto Franco (brother), Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco de Franco (grandmother, deceased) and Roberto Franco Pérez (grandfather, deceased), in relation to Article 24 of the American Convention. D. The rights of the child (Article 19) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention 148. The petitioners maintain that the facts alleged constitute a violation of the rights of the child, protected by the American Convention. The Guatemalan State did not specifically address this particular allegation. 149. Article 19 of the American Convention guarantees to every child “the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” The Inter-American Court has held that the American Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Guatemala ratified on June 6, 1990, form part of a ���comprehensive international corpus juris for the protection of the child that should help establish […] the content and 179 scope of the general provision established in Article 19 of the American Convention.” Article 19 of the American Convention must be construed as an added right which the Convention establishes for those 180 who, because of their physical and emotional development, require special protection. 150. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that every child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth. Accordingly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a 177 IACHR, Hearing Minutes No. 5, Case 12.578, María Isabel Véliz Franco, Guatemala, March 20, 2009. 178 Communication from Rosa Elvira Franco, dated April 27, 2007, addressed to the IACHR. I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 194. 179 180 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraph 54. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraph 147.