being reviewed in order to answer the request. In this regard, the Court observes that, as evidence of these facts, the Commission submitted an annex that supposedly formed part of a brief that the State had submitted to it on February 22, 2007. However, although the Inter-America Commission submitted this brief to the Court, the annex does not form part of the case file that was submitted. Thus, the Court is unable to consider the facts alleged by the Commission as proved. 209. Nevertheless, the Court considers it pertinent to indicate that State authorities are obliged to collaborate in obtaining evidence to achieve the objectives of the investigation and to abstain from taking steps that obstruct the progress of the investigation.298 In this case, the State acknowledged its responsibility, considering that it “had not guaranteed the full effectiveness of [the] rights [established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention] as regards investigating the facts and punishing those responsible” for the massacres “following the date on which it accepted the jurisdiction” of the Court. Added to this, during the public hearing, expert witness Hermann Mörth stated that “what we see today [is] a permanent pattern […] of failure to cooperate and, at times, of an effort to conceal or not to cooperate and provide information; this is a pattern that has existed for years […].” 210. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in the instant case, the military authorities failed to provide information duly and promptly that would be pertinent for elucidating the facts. On this point, it should be reiterated that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible is an obligation that corresponds to the State as a whole. This means that all State authorities, within their sphere of competence, must cooperate, support or assist in the due investigation of the facts. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of the human rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (infra para. 237). B.3. Investigation of the Xococ massacre 211. In this Judgment, it has already been established that the investigation into the facts of the massacre committed in Xococ in February 1982 was opened based on the testimony given by a surviving victim, Denese Joy Burck on March 19, 2001 (supra para. 89). By order of the Departmental First Instance Judge of Baja Verapaz, the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation performed an exhumation in the village of Xococ from September 4 to 17, 2001. The forensic anthropology report presented by the Foundation indicates that 44 skeletons were recovered, although it did not reject the possibility that more human remains were still buried. During the said procedure, it was only possible to identify Teresa Osorio Chen and Crispín Tum Iboy. 212. Meanwhile, on March 27, 2003, Carlos Chen Osorio, a victim in the instant case and a survivor of the Xococ massacre, appeared before the District Prosecutor of Salamá, Baja Verapaz, to testify on the events that occurred in the community of the Xococ. However, the Court has no further information on this investigation. 213. In its Merits Report, the Commission indicated that the State had not provided any additional information on the investigations carried out into the Xococ massacre and, furthermore, that it did not have access to the judicial case file. For their part, in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that they did not have any 298 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 112, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 171. 77