beginning of an investigation of violent acts against women in the context of their journalism work and entails the obligation to identify and investigate, with due diligence, the special and differentiated risks faced by women journalists due to their profession and their gender, 268 as well as the factors that increase their likelihood of becoming victims of violence. 269 Along with this, investigators are required to assume, from the start of their investigation, that the incidents of violence are related to the victim’s journalism work. 270 In sum, the Court views it as essential to emphasize that when investigating acts of violence directed against women journalists, States have the obligation to adopt all measures necessary to pursue the investigation from an intersectional perspective that takes into account these intersecting vulnerabilities affecting the person in question and that, in turn, require or add to the enhanced diligence. 127. In this case, the Court has determined that the facts suffered by Ms. Bedoya on May 25, 2000 involve a number of human rights violations that, in addition to amounting to violations of personal integrity, personal liberty, freedom of expression, and dignity, are also classified as acts of torture. Therefore, when addressing the obligation to investigate, it is necessary to take into account the investigation criteria developed by this Court for these different areas to ensure the investigations and criminal proceedings initiated are pursued with due diligence. 271 128. Regarding the collection and preservation of evidence, this Court recalls that it is within the scope of its competence—coadjuvant and complementary—to review the procedures in the domestic investigation, 272 which may lead to the finding of due diligence shortcomings. 273 However, this is only applicable when there is evidence that the alleged shortcomings could have affected the investigation as a whole, such that “as time passes, the possibility of collecting and presenting evidence in order to clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities is unduly limited.” 274 129. The Court notes first that in this case, there were certain shortcomings in the diligent collection of evidence. An example of this is the request, more than seven years after the facts, for footage from the prison, 275 or the request for the list of the guards on duty in the prison on the day of the supra, para. 209. 268 Cf. Expert opinion from Daniela Kravetz given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions, and Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Combating violence against women journalists, A/HRC/44/52, May 6, 2020, para. 84. 269 The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, in her report “Combating violence against women journalists” A/HRC/44/52 of May 6, 2020, concluded and recommended that States “Address factors that increase the likelihood of violence and harassment in the world of work for women journalists, including discrimination, abuse of power relations and cultural and social norms that support violence and harassment, and create internal mechanisms against sexual harassment in the workplace.” Also see: United Nations. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, CEDAW/C/GC/30, of November 1, 2013, para. 17. 270 Cf. Expert opinion from Daniela Kravetz given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions and submitted in writing (merits file, folio 1100). Also see: ECHR, Case of Mazepa et al. v. Russia, No. 15086/07, Judgment of July 17, 2018, para. 73. 271 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 455, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 219. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, and Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 19, 2019. Series C No. 392, para. 103. 272 273 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 282, and Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103. Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 172, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay. Merits. Judgment of May 13, 2019. Series C No. 377, para. 143. 274 275 Cf. Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, Resolution of September 15, 2007 (evidence file, folio 410); and Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, Resolution of August 21, 2008 (evidence file, folio 416). 48