7 no significant progress in the investigations, nor have any verdicts been issued identifying and convicting those responsible. They state that in the instant case there is a confluence of denial of justice, lack of access to the justice system, the impossibility of exhausting domestic remedies, and unwarranted delay in the administration of justice, such as to warrant the application of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established at Article 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Convention. 26. For the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners argue that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11(1), 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims. Furthermore, they argue that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXIV, XXV and XVI of the American Declaration; Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV and XV of the Convention on Forced Disappearance; Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 16 of the Convention on Torture; and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25 and 26 of the Universal Declaration. 27. They report that while some families have been compensated under the National Compensation Program (hereinafter "PNR" for its initials in Spanish) for the events that took place in the village of Chichupac, this was a slow and irregular case where amounts of compensation could only be characterized as symbolic payments since they do not constitute integral reparation of the material and moral damages suffered by the victims and their next-of-kin. Furthermore, they pointed out that this procedure is not a remedy that must be exhausted, since the nature of the facts alleged presupposes that the suitable remedy – and therefore the one that must be exhausted in the domestic administration of 8 justice -- is the investigation, criminal prosecution, and punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds. 28. Finally, they asked the IACHR to oversee implementation of the measures that Guatemala adopts to protect the life and physical integrity of the witnesses from the village of Chichupac and the communities of Xeabaj, Chijom, and El Tablón on reactivating the action and the criminal prosecution of the massacre of January 8, 1982 by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. B. The State 29. In its response, the State notes that the complaint filed with the IACHR includes many cases of different kinds, which occurred in different places, times, and circumstances that have resulted in the investigation of various judicial cases, which would be inappropriate to process together because there is no correlation between the alleged victims and the violations alleged in each case. Additionally, the State noted that it was wrong, inappropriate, and even likely to cause confusion, to hear such diverse facts within a single case. Given these observations, the Guatemalan State sought a breakdown of the petition and its processing under separate cases. 30. With respect to the massacre said to have occurred on January 8, 1982, the State does not deny the facts alleged. It reports that criminal proceeding 255-93 is going forward before the Court of First Instance for Criminal, Drug, and Environmental Crimes of the department of Baja Verapaz, under the charge of the Fourth officer, which is investigating the massacre of 32 persons in the village of 9 Chichupac. It indicates that this proceeding is in the investigative stage before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that it appears in the record that many investigative steps have been taken, of which it identifies the exhumations of May 6, 1993, through which a clandestine cemetery and different bony 8 9 Petitioners’ brief of July 16, 2009, numeral III. Reiterated in note of May 19, 2010. The State notes that the alleged victims in the proceeding are: Víctor Juárez Pangan, Clemente Juárez Ixpancoc, Cruz Sic Cuxum, Pedro Sic Jerónimo, Gregorio Valey, Timoteo Sic Cujá, Roberto Gallego Chen, Alfonso Supuc Juárez, Domingo Cahuec Sic, Santiago Alvarado Xitumul, Agustín Juárez Ixpancoc, Teodoro González Xitumul, Eulogio Morales Alvarado, Luciano González, Apolinario Juárez Pérez, Alberto Juarez Perez, Evaristo Siana, Pedro Tum, Emiliano Siana, Pedro Galiego López, Demetrio Chen Alvarado, Pedro Gallego Mendoza, Camilo Juárez Valey, Julian Garnica, Benito Juarez Ixpancoc, Francisco Depaz, Maximiliano Sic Valey, Vicente Sic Osorio, Patrocinio Chen Galiego, Félix Alvarado Xitumul, Pedro Mendoza, and Pedro Tum Amperes. The IACHR observes that comparing the lists presented by the parties, the names of 22 alleged victims coincide, eight were written differently but one can presume that they refer to the same person, and two persons identified in one of the lists do not coincide with the remaining two persons in the other one.