violence against women and the State’s obligation to eliminate it and to ensure that victims have confidence in the State institutions for their protection.” 184 157. The Court notes that the Special Prosecutor, in his oral testimony in the public hearing (supra paras. 8 and 27), explained that the perspective of gender “was not analyzed” since “what occurred in this case was simply the murder of individuals who were in the apartment without the soldiers knowing whether the victims were women.” Nevertheless, there are statements that indicate that the soldiers should have noted that there was a pregnant woman in the house and that the three women screamed not to kill them, which presupposes that the soldiers could have presumed that they were attacking women (supra para. 56 and footnote 46). In addition, there were reports that the body of one of the women was nude when found (supra para. 58), although it is not known whether there was an inquiry as to why she was found nude. 158. The Court, thus, understands that it cannot discard a priori the possibility that in this case there were acts of violence of gender and that they should be duly investigated. The statements of the Special Prosecutor clearly demonstrate that there have been no inquiries into the matter, which would be a negligent omission contrary to the duty to punish acts of violence against women. Therefore, the State did not comply with Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 159. Delay in resolving the remedies. – With respect to the delay in resolving the remedies, the Court recalls that the judges, who are in charge of directing the proceeding, have the duty to direct and channel the judicial proceeding with the aim of not sacrificing justice and due legal process in favor of formalism and impunity. Thus, if the authorities permit and tolerate such use of judicial remedies (with disproportionate actions and remedies that can have a delaying effect), they turn them into a means for those who commit the illegal act to delay and obstruct the judicial proceeding. This leads to a violation of the international obligation of the State to prevent and protect human rights and it abridges the right of the victim and the next of kin of the victim to know the truth of what happened, for all those responsible to be identified and punished, and to obtain the attendant reparations.185 160. The judicial investigation into the violent deaths of Ms. Reyes, Ms. Raggio and Ms. Maidanik, as may be seen from what follows, was delayed by the repeated filing of appeals by the defense of the accused. 161. The facts show that after he had been summoned to declare on April 7, 2016 (supra para. 68), the accused E.K. requested that the proceedings be held to be timebarred due to prescription.186 On September 19, 2016, the court denied the request of E.K. and, on October 11, he filed an appeal of revocation and further appeal.187 On Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 193 and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, para. 129. 184 Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211. 185 Cf. Undated request of “suspension of proceedings, closing and archiving of the case due to prescription” (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 6357 to 6368). 186 Cf. Filing of remedies of revocation and further appeal by E.K before the Eighth Court on October 11, 2016 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 6424 to 6436). The communication mentions interlocutory decision 2010/2016 of September 19, 2016, indicating that “it did not accept the request to close and archive the proceedings. 187 43