groups were responsible for 92% of the forced disappearances recorded by this organization. 50 55. The peace negotiation process in Guatemala began in 1990, and ended in 1996. During this period twelve accords were signed, including one that established the Historical Clarification Commission (CEH), which began work on July 31, 1997, and submitted its report on February 25, 1999. The National Reconciliation Act established that the State authorities “were legally obliged to support the [CEH].” Nevertheless, the CEH complained that State agencies did not allow access to relevant information. In this regard, the CEH “described the collaboration provided by the National Army as unsatisfactory and unreliable” and emphasized that it had “not received a single document with information on the activities of the intelligence services,” even though it had requested these. 51 According to the CEH, “the Executive – through various agencies, including the National Army and the Private Secretariat of the President of the Republic – had given different reasons for not handing over the documents requested by the CEH. Initially, it stated that the documents were subject to constitutional reserve; subsequently, […] it indicated that the requested documents had never existed or had been lost or destroyed,” even though “the Commission ha[d] verified that some of [these] documents […] truly existed and were on file in offices of the National Army.” 52 Regarding the latter, the Court notes that, in response to the CEH, the Ministry of Defense had denied the existence of documents, such as the Diario Militar, which appeared, through unofficial channels, three months after the Commission had published its final report 53 (infra para. 56). This lack of access to information had an adverse impact on the work of the CEH. 54 However, with regard to the instant case, the CEH was able to obtain other “evidence” about what happened to Edgar Fernando García, through direct and referential witnesses (infra para. 68). B) The Diario Militar and the Historical Archive of the National Police B.1) The Diario Militar 56. In May 1999, the National Security Archive, a United States non-governmental organization, published a confidential Guatemalan state intelligence document known as the during the internal armed conflict provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1972 to 1974). 50 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, p. 411, para. 2053. 51 Cf. CEH, supra, volume I, pp. 23, 26-27, 30, 35, 49 to 51, 215, paras. 1, 2, 19, 45, 89 to 96 and 694, and volume II, pp. 13, 14 and 15, paras. 741 and 745; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 134.9; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 64; Decree No. 145-1996: National Reconciliation Act, December 27, 1996, supra, art. 10 and selection of correspondence between the CEH and institutions of the Republic of Guatemala, letter of April 29, 1998, ABT/C/092-98/lg, addressed to the President’s Private Secretary, CEH, supra, volume VIII, pp. 176 and 177. 52 Cf. CEH, supra, volume I, p. 50, para. 93. 53 The CEH requested and was not provided with, inter alia, information on: “[r]eports of daily operations and transactions prior to 1988” of the Army, and “[t]he situational assessments, plans of operations, operation orders, operation reports, and operation logs of the Presidential General Staff between 1960 and 1996, as well as an overall list of the operations conducted in its sphere of responsibility and the reports on these operations.” Cf. Selection of correspondence between the CEH and institutions of the Republic of Guatemala, Letter of March 24, 1998, CT/C/079-98/lg, addressed to the President of the Republic, CEH, supra, volume VIII, annex III, pp. 161 and 162. 54 The CEH indicated, in relation to the forced disappearances, that it “was unable to clarify […] if there had been a single chain of command or a centralized system from which the instructions for carrying out the forced disappearance of persons originated.” Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, p. 459, para. 2180. 19