13 to others that could be classified as a massacre.37 These circumstances were included in the CEH Report. 37. There follow the main aspects of the events of October 3 and 5, as related by the CEH and as included in the Report on the Merits. Thus, the facts are compiled from different sources of evidence: a. On October 3, 1995, a military patrol comprised of at least 26 soldiers, including one minor, set out from the Rubelsanto military base.38 b. On the morning of October 5, some inhabitants of the Community noticed the presence of the soldiers when they passed by the Xamán finca. A group of neighbors, which included some women and authorities of the Community, approached the soldiers and asked to see the officer in charge. 39 c. The group asked the soldiers to explain why they were there. 40 After this encounter, the soldiers entered the Community. 41 The number of inhabitants that surrounded the soldiers gradually increased.42 At 1:30 pm, the Second Lieutenant in charge spoke with the Deputy Mayor.43 While this was happening, the inhabitants more vehemently manifested their discontent with the military presence. 44 They asked the soldiers to put down their weapons and remain there until the UN Mission of Verification in Guatemala (hereinafter “MINUGUA”) and the UNHCR could verify the alleged violation of the Accords of October 8, 1992.45 d. The members of the patrol tried to leave, pushing the people aside with their rifles. At a moment during this tense situation the soldiers fired at a woman, Juana It should be noted that the Guatemalan judicial authorities also classified the incident as a “massacre” (cf. Decision of the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verpaz of July 8, 2004 (evidence file, annex 29 to the Merits Report, fs. 934 to 1424) (Hereinafter this decision will be referred to as “the decision of July 8, 2004.”) 38 CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case 3: Xamán Massacre. The CEH reported that the patrol was comprised of 26 soldiers, including one minor. However, the statement of AHM, which was provided to the Commission with the initial petition and offered to the Court as documentary evidence, refers to 27 soldiers, including one minor (cf. Evidence file, annex 3 to the Merits Report, fs. 10 to 15). This judgment uses initials to refer to certain persons who appear in documents regarding domestic actions and who were not involved in the international proceedings before the Commission or the Court. 39 Cf. Statement of AHM, supra. According to the decision of July 8, 2004 (infra para. 64), the soldiers were first seen at 10 a.m., after which they left the main road passing by a wooded area near a school and were seen by children during their recess, who alerted the school authorities (cf. Decision of July 8, 2004, supra) and, similarly, the statement of A, in which he is identified as a member of the Community, which was provided to the Commission with the initial petition and offered to the Court as documentary evidence (evidence file, annex 3 to the Merits Report, fs. 5 to 8). Tomás Grave Morente, in his statement before the Court, supra, maintained that when the inhabitants heard that soldiers were present, they went to see what was happening. 40 Cf. Decision of July 8, 2004, supra. 41 Efraín Grave Morente stated that the soldiers said that they were lost and then changed their story and indicated that they wished to participate in the activities commemorating the first anniversary of the creation of the Community (cf. Testimony of Efraín Grave Morente before the Guatemalan judiciary (evidence file, annex 1 to the final written arguments of the State, fs. 5511 to 5516); statement made by video recording incorporated as documentary evidence, attached to the brief with pleadings and motions and affidavit presented to the Court, supra. The decision of July 8, 2004 contains the version that the soldiers asked to participate in the festivities commemorating the first anniversary of the Community (cf. Decision of July 8, 2004, supra). It also indicated that the soldiers had to go to the center of the Community to explain their presence there (cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case 3: Xamán Massacre). 42 Cf. Decision of July 8, 2004, supra. 43 Cf. Statement of A, supra. 44 Cf. Statement of PAR that was provided to the Commission with the initial petition and provided to the Court as documentary evidence (evidence file, annex 3 to the Merits Report, fs. 15 to 18). 45 Cf. Judgment of July 8, 2004, supra. Distinct statements of survivors of the massacre noted that they asked the soldiers to call MINUGUA to ascertain whether they could enter. The testimony of Efraín Grave Meorente before the Guatemalan judiciary, supra, may be compared to his statement before the Court, supra. 37