to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 (supra para. 15); therefore, the obligation to investigate the facts has been in force from the moment the massacres took place, even though they can only be submitted to this Court’s consideration after the State accepted its contentious jurisdiction (supra para. 15). However, the first investigations were only launched in 1993 after some of the presumed victims filed complaints before the domestic authorities. Thus, the investigations were begun six years after the State’s recognition of this Court’s contentious jurisdiction. Even though, in this case, some of those responsible for at least one of the massacres have already been convicted, the facts remain in impunity more than 30 years after they occurred. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not necessary to analyze the above-mentioned criteria given that it is obvious that the investigations into the five massacres have exceeded any standard of reasonable duration. Therefore, the Court concludes that, since the investigations were not conducted within a reasonable time, the State is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument (infra para. 237). B.7. Alleged discrimination due to the failure to investigate the facts of this case 231. The Commission indicated that “the failure to comply with [the] increased obligation to investigate and prosecute the acts of genocide and racism perpetrated against the community of Río Negro perpetuates the effects of the racial discrimination to which the members of the Maya Achí people were subjected.” In this regard, the Commission cited the judgment handed down by the Court in the case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala to argue that, in keeping with the principle of non-discrimination, access to justice for the members of indigenous peoples means that the States must “grant effective protection that takes into account their inherent particularities and their economic and social characteristics, together with their special situation of vulnerability, their customary law, values, practices and customs.” Therefore, it considered that, in this case, the State had violated the right recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 232. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that in the said case of Tiu Tojín, specific acts of discrimination were alleged and proved that prevented the next of kin of the disappeared victims from being able to access justice because they belonged to the Maya indigenous peoples. In the instant case, first, the Court has determined that it does not have competence to rule on the supposed acts of discrimination alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 39). Second, regarding the investigation, the Commission made a general allegation, in other words, the mere absence of a diligent investigation, rather than specific facts in the context of the said investigation from which supposed acts of discrimination could be derived, as in the Tiu Tojín case. Thus, the Court does not have sufficient elements to rule on this violation. B.8. Request of the representatives and the Commission that the facts be classified as “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” 233. The Commission and the representatives argued that the violations perpetrated in this case constitute crimes against humanity and genocide, which are, inherently, grave human rights violations. Thus, they asked the Court to classify the acts that occurred as “crimes against humanity” and “genocide.” In this regard, in its answer, as well as during the public hearing and in its final written arguments, the State was emphatic in maintaining its opposition to the Court classifying specific facts as genocide or crimes against humanity, 82