2 "The crimes committed in implementation of the scorched-earth policy, including the Plan de Sánchez massacre, constitute genocide against the Mayan indigenous people of Guatemala. (...) The intention of these acts was to partially or totally destroy the Mayan ethnic group, which includes, as in this case, the Maya-Achí of Rabinal. (...) (...) The result of the State policy has been the murder of thousands of Guatemalan Mayan indigenous people and the complete eradication of almost 440 villages. (...) The CEH recorded 626 massacres that could be attributed to the [State] forces. Victims and survivors of such crimes have been forced to live under a regime of terror and repression, under the authority of those who had carried out the massacres, unable to speak out or demand justice for themselves or their dead. (...) After the massacres, the survivors were forced to live in an environment created and controlled by the Army." (...).2 4. During the contentious proceeding before the Inter-American Court, the respondent State acknowledged, with dignity, its international responsibility for the Plan de Sánchez massacre, in the words transcribed in paragraphs 34 to 38 of this judgment. The Court assessed this acknowledgment as “a positive contribution to the development of this proceeding and to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention" (para. 50). Despite acknowledging its responsibility for the violation of several provisions of the American Convention (cf. para. 36(3) and (4)), the State did not refer to “the issue of genocide,” which the Commission and the petitioners had raised in their briefs, “since it was not a matter covered by the American Convention" (para. 36(5)). 5. In its report, Guatemala - Memoria del Silencio, the Historical Clarification Commission (CEH) established that “acts of genocide” were perpetrated, particularly, during the period from 1981 to 1983, which saw the highest rates of violence in the armed conflict in Guatemala (during which 81% of the grave human rights violations occurred).3 In its assessment of the events that occurred in four regions of Guatemala, the CEH concluded that “acts of genocide” were perpetrated against members of the Maya-Ixil, Maya-Achi, Maya-k'iche', Maya-Chuj and Maya-q'anjob'al peoples.4 In its "final conclusions" in this respect, the CEH repeatedly referred to the concept of acts of genocide.5 In the opinion of the CEH, the victims were, above all, the “most vulnerable” members of the Mayan communities (especially children and the elderly),6 and these grave human rights violations involved both the individual responsibility of the “masterminds and perpetrators” of the “acts of genocide” and “State responsibility,” because most of these acts were the “result of a policy preestablished by a superior officer for the perpetrators.”7 II. 2 Jurisdiction and Responsibility Paragraphs 354, 357 and 359 of the brief with observations. 3 The CEH considered it "pertinent to make a distinction between a genocide policy and acts of genocide. A genocide policy exists when the final objective of the actions is the total or partial extermination of a group. Genocidal acts occur when the final objective is not the extermination of the group, but other political, economic, military or any other type of goal, yet the means used to achieve this final objective include the total or partial extermination of the group.” Historical Clarification Commission, Guatemala - Memoria del Silencio, tome III, Guatemala, CEH, 1999, pp. 316-318. 4 Cf. ibid., pp. 358, 375-376, 393 and 416, respectively. 5 Cf. ibid., pp. 417-423. 6 Cf., for example., ibid., p. 410. 7 Ibid., p. 422.