On December 18, 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) published its decision (judgment only available in Spanish) in Paiz v. Guatemala, ruling that Guatemala has not taken sufficient measures to combat the increasing problem of violence against women. According to the press release (only available in Spanish), the case arose out of the sexual abuse and murder of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz in 2003, which has not been solved yet. The Court reaffirmed its jurisprudence that a state is not responsible for every human rights violation committed by individuals within its territory. Rather, the state will be liable for breach of the duty to prevent violations to life and personal integrity if two things can be shown: the state authorities knew or should have known of a real and immediate risk to the life or personal integrity of an individual or group of individuals, and said authorities, within the scope of their responsibilities, did not adopt the necessary measures which could reasonably have been expected to prevent or eliminate that risk. The Court stressed that considering the sharp increase in offenses against women, the state had a heightened duty to respond to reports of missing women quickly and with thorough and exhaustive searches. The Court found that Guatemala had failed to implement necessary measures, such as instructing officials responding to these crimes about the gravity of the same given the background of growing violence against women or instilling the will and training to act immediately and effectively. The Court concluded that the Guatemalan authorities did not implement necessary procedures to combat and investigate violence against women and thus violated its duty to guarantee the free and full exercise of the right to life and personal integrity. The Court further noted that the irregularities of the investigation prevented the case from being investigated thoroughly and being classified as a gender crime, thus violating judicial guarantees such as the right to judicial protection and the right of equality before the law. Turning to the rights of the Paiz family members, the Court ruled that the state’s actions had violated their personal integrity, injured their honor and personal dignity.