5 19. The Court recalled, inter alia, that the surviving victims were forced to accept the presence of the perpetrators in the same common areas, and were stigmatized, because they were accused of being guilty of the facts, so that they have lived “in a permanent state of silence” (paras. 49(15) and 87(c)) – the torment of silence – in the face of the continuation, up until the present, of impunity, which has caused profound anguish, frustration and impotence (para. 87(e)). Also, the consensus which was prevalent in the Maya-Achí community, and its cultural values of respect for its neighbors and community service, were replaced by force, imposing a militarized structure, with authoritarian practices and the arbitrary use of power, fragmenting the community and causing it to lose is basic points of reference (paras. 49(16) and 87(d)). 20. The damage has continued over time, over more than 22 years of silence and impunity. The Plan de Sánchez massacre, perpetrated on July 18, 1982, was conceived, planned and authorized by the State, at the highest level, and brutally executed (by means of summary executions, torture, rape and humiliations) by State agents, as part of a State policy. Thereafter, the State took measures to ensure impunity. The Plan de Sánchez massacre – I must insist – was carried out within the framework of a clear and confirmed State policy, responsible for 626 massacres attributed to the State’s security forces (in the period from 1978 to 1984) and, according to the report of the Historical Clarification Commission of Guatemala (cited in the application in this case), these massacres were addressed at “previously identified” individuals and groups of individuals, in order to “destroy an ethnic group,” and “were intended the exterminate whole Mayan communities.” 6 21. The Plan de Sánchez massacre, almost miraculously (given the brutalized world in which we live), managed to reach an international tribunal such as the Inter-American Court, and must enter the annals of contemporary public international law. Faced with events such as those of the instant case, what have those who write on legal doctrine and who insist on denying the existence of State crime to say? How much longer will they close their eyes to reality? The authority of the argument is more important than the “argument” of the respective “authority,” which is disproved by the facts. State crime exists; this cannot be denied. The facts of the Plan de Sánchez massacre prove it authentically. 22. In my opinion, the international responsibility of the State and the international criminal liability of the individuals who perpetrated the crime are absolutely complementary and not parallel or self-exclusive. The State cannot exempt itself from its own responsibility for crimes committed by its agents in its name and in implementation of a State policy. Contrary to what some contemporary legal doctrine alleges, societas delinquere potest. Furthermore, it is not impossible or overwhelmingly difficult to establish the reparations for State crimes, as the InterAmerican Court has shown in this judgment. 23. In addition to the reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court has ordered other forms of reparation, bearing in mind the aggravating 6 . Cf. also, in addition to my separate opinion in the judgment on merits in this case (paras. 2-3), the report of the Historial Clarification Commission, Guatemala - Memoria del Silencio, tomo III, Guatemala, CEH, 1999, pp. 316-318, 358, 375-376, 393, 410 and 416-423.