3 11. The petitioners pointed out that the policy was replicated against the Maya Achí population of the municipality of Rabinal, Department of Baja Verapaz, who were accused of collaborating with or belonging to the guerrilla movement. 12. The specifics of the facts and domestic inquiries will be addressed in the Commission’s examination of the facts and are based on the information supplied by both parties. This section is a summation of the main legal arguments put forward by the petitioners. 13. The petitioners acknowledged the State’s acceptance of international responsibility. With regard to the January 8, 1982 massacre, they alleged that the State violated the right to life of the alleged victims who were murdered. The petitioners argued that by being arbitrarily deprived of their lives, the alleged victims’ right to honor and dignity was also violated. The petitioners further maintained that the alleged victims’ right to humane treatment was violated because they were subjected to torture while inside the Chichupac community health center, where they had been assembled. The petitioners also pointed out that the alleged victims endured terrible pain and suffering because they were tortured before being murdered. Their contention was that the State violated the alleged victims’ right to personal liberty by unlawfully and arbitrarily detaining them inside the health center for at least six hours. 14. The petitioners also argued that the right to life was also violated in the case of the victims whom they allege were executed and disappeared in events that transpired between 1981 and 1986. They added that the State also violated the right to humane treatment in the case of the victims alleged to have been tortured, disappeared and/or raped. 15. As for the right to freedom of conscience and religion, the petitioners argued that the facts alleged destroyed the social fabric of the village of Chichupac and the neighboring communities. They underscored that the alleged victims and their next of kin were unable to practice their religion and beliefs, either individually or collectively, owing to persecution and fear. They also noted that because they lived under military control at the model village of “La Colonia,” which the military set up in 1984, the Maya Achí were unable to practice their Mayan spiritualism and beliefs. The petitioners’ contention was that the alleged victims lost their cultural identity and community dynamics as a result. 16. As for freedom of association, the petitioners maintained that starting in late 1981, the members of the village of Chichupac and the hamlet of Xeabaj were forced to take part in the civil selfdefense patrols (hereinafter the “PAC”) and stressed the fact that if they refused to join the patrol, they were persecuted, executed or disappeared and accused of being members of the guerrilla movement. 17. As for the rights of the family, the petitioners argued that the State failed to comply with its duty to protect the families in the villages. They maintained that quite the contrary, the lives of the communities’ inhabitants were not respected. 18. As for the right to privacy, the petitioners maintained that the State robbed the alleged victims of their property when it burned down their homes, cut down and destroyed their crops and stole their livestock and other animals. As for the right to equal protection, the petitioners argued that the facts alleged presuppose discrimination against indigenous persons. 19. The petitioners also alleged that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. They claimed that although complaints were filed concerning the facts alleged in