186. In addition, the Commission and the representatives stressed that the violations perpetrated in the instant case constitute crimes against humanity and genocide, and that, in themselves, they are grave human rights violations. Consequently, they indicated that it was necessary to activate the means, instruments and mechanisms for the prosecution and punishment of the authors, and therefore asked the Court to classify the facts as “crimes against humanity” and “genocide.” 187. Based on the above, the Commission and the representatives argued that the impunity that reigns in this case has resulted in the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará, to the detriment of the survivors and the next of kin of those tortured and extrajudicially executed during the different massacres. Furthermore, the Commission alleged the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and to Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of those who disappeared and their next of kin. 188. As previously indicated in this Judgment (supra para. 17(h), the State expressed its “partial acknowledgement” of the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Para, to the detriment of the survivors and next of kin of those who were tortured and extrajudicially executed in the different massacres, because “it ha[d] failed to comply fully with its obligations to investigate the facts and to punish those responsible.” In this regard, the State reiterated its commitment to begin the necessary proceedings and advance those that are pending. In addition, Guatemala expressed its “total acknowledgement” with regard to the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance to the detriment of Ramona Lajuj and Manuel Chen Sánchez, as they were the only victims of forced disappearance identified by the Commission. Finally, the State declared that it would “not refer” to the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, because the Commission had not identified to whose detriment the said violations had been committed. B. Considerations of the Court 189. The State has expressed its acknowledgment of responsibility for the failure to investigate the facts. However, the Court takes into account that this case relates to multiple grave, massive and systematic human rights violations that took place in the context of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. Therefore, the Court will now refer to case law concerning the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for such violations when they are committed within a context such as that of the instant case. 190. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must adopt in order to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention.272 Since its first judgment, this Court has underscored the importance of the State’s obligation 272 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, paras. 166 and 167, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 265. 70