A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 such as the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, should be strengthened.259 E. Differential approach in cases of disappearances of women 129. The Working Group recognized a gender perspective is critical in explaining, understanding and dealing with unique challenges that women face in the exercise of their human rights and to outline solutions to address these issues.260 130. The Inter-American Court in the Cotton Field case, dealing with enforced disappearances and subsequent deaths of three women in Ciudad Juarez at the US-Mexico border, found that States have the positive obligation to create an appropriate legal framework to combat violence against women. The Court held that an obligation of strict due diligence to take prompt and effective investigative measures follows in the event of disappearances of women. The State has the duty to establish and implement an effective policy framework in order to combat incidences of violence reported over several years since those expose an apparent risk for relevant authorities. In this context, the InterAmerican Court considered various reports outlining that the up-to-date policy methods for prevention in relation to specific violations against women have been ineffective. The Court also referred to assessments by UN bodies in relation to the general context of violence against women. The Court stated that prior to the disappearances, an increased degree of vigilance by State authorities was required in a context of widespread violence. Second, prior to the discovery of the body the State was obliged to undertake effective search operations.261 131. The Inter-American Court stated in Gonzalez et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico (paragraph 273): “The Court observes that national and international reports agree that the prevention of the murder of women in Ciudad Juárez, and also the response to these killings, has been ineffective and insufficient. According to the 2005 CEDAW Report, it was only in 2003, primarily as a follow-up to the report of the IACHR Rapporteur, “that people began to face squarely the need for a comprehensive and integrated program with distinct and complementary areas of intervention.” (…) (Paragraph 284): Mexico did not prove that it had adopted reasonable measures, according to the circumstances surrounding these cases, to find the victims alive. The State did not act promptly during the first hours and days following the reports of the disappearances, losing valuable time. In the period between the reports and the discovery of the victims’ bodies, the State merely carried out formalities and took statements that, although important, lost their value when they failed to lead to specific search actions. (…) The foregoing reveals that the State did not act with the required due diligence to prevent the death and abuse suffered by the victims adequately and did not act, as could reasonably be expected, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, to end their deprivation of liberty. This failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee is particularly serious owing to the context of which the State was aware – which placed women in a particularly vulnerable situation – and of the even greater obligations imposed in cases of violence against women by Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará.” 132. In this context, the Inter-American Court requested that specific legislative and policy frameworks should to be established in order to comply with all investigative duties necessary in contexts of widespread violence against women. 133. The Human Rights Committee, in Sassene v. Algeria, reaffirmed that the suffering caused by enforced disappearances also affects their relatives and can be considered as a form of cruel and inhuman treatment warranting effective mechanisms for investigation. In this context, the specifically gender-related consequences of enforced disappearances may 259 260 261 44 A/HRC/45/13/Add.1, para. 38. A/HRC/WGEID/98/2, Preamble; See Section III, I of the Thematic Report. IACHR, González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico, (see footnote 132) para. 284.