72 carrying on the day of the events, the case file reveals that, on March 26, 2002, authorization was granted to request the list of telephone calls from several telecommunications companies in order to establish to whom certain telephone numbers belonged, the address where the owner of the number could be located, and the incoming and outgoing calls between December 15 and 24, 2001.303 Nevertheless, it was only on June 8, 2005, that the criminal investigations expert sent the Assistant Prosecutor the report on the telephone calls with a description and an analysis of their pattern (supra footnote 148). Some additional inquiries were made based on this report. 201. Notwithstanding the pertinence of the steps taken, the foregoing shows that, in the case sub judice, the State did not act with the promptness required in order to ensure that certain procedures aimed at clarifying the events were effective, because the search was carried out more than eighteen months after reception of the anonymous telephone call on December 18, 2001, and the analysis of the mobile telephone calls was examined more than three years after the information had been obtained. B.3) Failure to adopt precautionary measures for a suspect 202. The Court has verified that the April 10, 2002, expansion of a report provided on February 20, 2002, contains an analysis of the relationship between María Isabel and one of the suspects, and indications that could suggest that he might be responsible for María Isabel’s murder. The investigators therefore suggested that the suspect should be captured in view of “the danger of his flight.” Subsequently, on June 21, 2006, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations indicated in its report that it had not been possible to find him (supra footnote 171). 203. The State acknowledged its responsibility on this point (supra para. 19). According to the case files provided to the Court, no precautionary measure was issued for the suspect and, when another effort to find him was made four years later, it was unsuccessful. Based on the State’s acknowledgement, the Court finds that the State did not follow up appropriately on the evidence or circumstances of the suspect that could have provided grounds for the need to adopt a precautionary measure. This prevented a proper investigation of the suspect, which adversely affected the investigation. B.4) Discrimination and absence of a gender-based investigation 204. The Court has established in its case law that Article 1(1) of the Convention is a general norm, the content of which extends to all the provisions of this treaty because it establishes the obligation of the States Parties to respect and ensure the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination.” In other words, whatever its origin or form, any treatment that can be considered discriminatory in relation to the exercise of any of the rights ensured in the Convention is, per se, incompatible with this instrument.304 A State’s failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure rights, due to any type of discriminatory treatment, results in its international responsibility.305 Hence there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and ensure human rights and the principle of equality and nondiscrimination.306 303 Cf. Note C-105-2002/6º issued by the Mixco Court of First Instance, supra. 304 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis), supra, para. 332. 305 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 85, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 236. 306 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 53, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., supra, para. 224.