- 78 - se, incompatible with this instrument. 307 Non-compliance by the State with the general obligation to respect and to ensure human rights, owing to any discriminatory treatment, gives rise to its international responsibility. Thus, there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and to ensure human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination.308 211. The Court considers that gender-based violence – that is, violence against a woman because she is a woman – or violence that affects women disproportionately, is a form of discrimination against women.309 Both the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its monitoring mechanism have recognized the link that exists between violence against women and discrimination.310 In the instant case, the Court considers that the physical violence committed against the eleven women constituted a form of gender-based discrimination because the sexual abuse was applied to the women, because they were women. Even though the men detained during the operations were also subjected to an excessive use of force, the women were affected by differentiated forms of violence, which were clearly of a sexual nature and focused on intimate parts of their bodies, and that were laden with stereotypes concerning their sexual role and their role in the home and in society, and also with regard to their credibility. Furthermore, it had the distinctive purpose of humiliating and punishing them for being women who, presumably, were participating in a public protest against a decision of the State authority. 212. Furthermore, although it has already been concluded that the series of assaults committed by the police against the eleven women constituted torture and sexual violence, the Court deems it pertinent to include some additional considerations on the stereotypical verbal violence to which they were subjected in the context of these facts, owing to the nature of those expressions, their consistent and repetitive nature, and the absence of an adequate response by the State in this regard. The physical violence to which the victims were subjected, and which has already been described, was severe but, despite this, the gravity of the verbal and psychological violence to which they were also repeatedly subjected by insults and threats with highly sexual, macho, discriminatory and, in some case, misogynous connotations should not be obscured. Therefore, in this section, the Court will analyze, in particular, the stereotypical verbal abuse and expressions to which the eleven women were subjected at the time of their detention, during the transfers and on arrival at CEPRESO by the police agents who carried out the operations. The Court will also refer to the immediate reaction, also laden with stereotypes, of senior government authorities when confronted with the reports of the abuses that had been or were being committed. Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 271. 307 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 Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 271. 308 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. para. 303, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 223. 309 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field” )v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, paras. 394 and 395, citing the Convention of Belém do Pará, Preamble and Article 6; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of December 18, 1979, Article 1, and the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women, UN Doc. A/47/38, January 29, 1992, paras. 1 and 6. See also, inter alia, Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 290. 310