49 due process”194 [and] highlighted the Cases of Myrna Mack Chang, Maritza Urrutia, Plan de Sanchez Massacre, Molina Theissen, Tiu Tojín and the [The Dos Erres Massacre195], all regarding violations of human rights during the armed conflict in Guatemala, in which 13, 11, 22, 22, 17, and [27] years, respectively, after the facts occurred the obligation of the State to investigate and end the impunity, continues to be unsatisfied."196 177. Of that expressed previously, the Court considers that during the period in which the facts of the present case occurred in Guatemala there existed a pattern of denial of justice and of impunity, which lasted after March 9, 1987 until the current date. Said practice implied, in many cases, acts destined to terrorize and intimidate the population with the purpose of avoiding the reporting of the facts that violated human rights and particularly affected the indigenous population. For the effects of the present case, the Court must establish in what measure the context – as a background – and the investigation of the facts subsequent to the recognition of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Tribunal by the the State, can be framed within the pattern of impunity and denial of justice. B. Facts 178. As was already established, Florencio Chitay Nech was detained on April 1, 1981, in Guatemala City (supra para. 75) According to the petition, this same day the wife of the alleged victim, Marta Rodriguez Quex, accompanied with her two older sons Encarnacion and Pedro filed a complaint regarding the detention and forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech at the National Civil Police station located on the San Juan Road, in front of La Florida.197 This was also indicated by the representatives. 179. This Tribunal makes note that if in the elements of evidence offered by the parties in the present case, the record of statements does not contain the testimonies given by two of the sons before the National Police, they made reference to said situation. Like that, in the public hearing, Pedro Chitay manifested before the Court that the police “never paid attention [to them], they only saw that they were writing, they did not kno[w] if they were committed since then.” Case Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala, supra note 40, para. 51, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para 134. 194 “[T]o date, the tribunals of justice in Guatemala have been unable to investigate effectively, process, prosecute, and punish those responsable for the violations of human rights” and that “[i]n numerous occasions the tribunals of justice have acted subordinate to the Executive Power or the influence of the military, in ‘applying norms or legal provisions contrary to due process or not applying those that correspond.” Case Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Supervision of Compliance. Order of the Court of 27 of January of 2009, para. 22, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 12, para 134. Cf. Case Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 134.13. 195 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 12, para. 134. 196 Cf. Case Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 272; Case Maritza Urrutia V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 27 of November of 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 176; Case Masacre Plan of Sánchez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 of November of 2003. Series C No. 116, para. 95; Case Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 3 of July of 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 79, and Case Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala, supra note 40, citing Case Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Supervision of Compliance, supra note 194, para. 23; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 12, para. 134. 197 Cf. Statement of Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 57, f. 78; Statement of Eliseo Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 57, f. 86; Statement of Estermerio Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 57, f. 75; Statement of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 56, f. 82; Statement of Eliseo Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 59, f. 572; Statement of Estermerio Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 131, f. 593; statement of Pedro Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 55, and statement of Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez, supra note 58.