75 case by the fact that some officials in charge of the investigation of the case made statements that denote the existence of prejudices and stereotypes about the role of women in society. The body of evidence reveals that, in some investigation reports, explicit reference was made to María Isabel’s way of dressing, her social and night life, her religious beliefs, and also her family’s lack of concern or supervision. According to a brief of the victim’s mother dated April 27, 2007 (supra para. 118), the Assistant Prosecutor of Mixco Agency No. 5 had told her that María Isabel “was a tart, a prostitute.”317 Also, based on information provided in a psychological appraisal of one of María Isabel’s friends, the expert, without any grounds, concluded in his report that the victim had suffered from “emotional instability because she went out with several boyfriends and male acquaintances” (supra para. 118). Even though, as the State argues, it is true that some of these statements come from testimony provided by witnesses or individuals who were interviewed during the investigation (friends and acquaintances of the victim), the fact that, during the interrogations and in the reports, relevance was given to certain aspects of the private life and prior behavior of María Isabel reveals the existence of gender stereotypes. This conclusion is in keeping with the context referred to in several reports and the testimony of women survivors and their family members, as well as of expert witness Solís García, about the “tendency of the investigators to discredit the victims and blame them for their lifestyle, or clothes,” and to inquire into aspects relating to the personal relationships and sexuality of the victims (supra para. 90). 213. In this case, gender stereotypes had a negative influence on the investigation of the case, insofar as they transferred the blame for what happened to the victim and to her family members, closing other possible lines of investigation into the circumstances of the case and the identification of the perpetrators. In this regard, the Court has already had the occasion to indicate that the creation and use of stereotypes becomes a cause and consequence of gender-based violence against women.318 214. The Court, referring to Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention, has indicated that “the difference between the two articles stems from the fact that the general obligation of Article 1(1) refers to the State’s obligation to respect and ensure, ‘without discrimination,’ the rights contained in the American Convention. In other words, if a State discriminates in the respect or guarantee of a treaty-based right, it would violate Article 1(1) and the substantive right in question. If, to the contrary, the discrimination refers to unequal protection of domestic law or its application, the fact must be examined in light of Article 24.”319 215. The facts of the instant case include both types of discrimination and, therefore, it is not necessary make a distinction; accordingly the Court finds that both the right to equal protection of the law (Article 24) and the obligation to respect and ensure the rights contained in the American Convention (Article 1(1)) have been violated. 216. Consequently, the Court considers that the investigation into the murder of María Isabel has not been conducted with a gender perspective in keeping with the special obligations imposed by the Convention of Belém do Pará. Therefore, in the context of the investigation in this case, the State violated the right to equal protection of the law contained in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation of nondiscrimination contained in Article 1(1). B.5) Reasonable time 317 Cf. Brief of Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval addressed to the Inter-American Commission, supra. 318 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, paras. 400 and 401, and IACHR, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Mesoamerica, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 68, January 20, 2007. 319 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 209, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis), supra, para. 333.