41 women] it [was] not only […] raping them, [but] also killing them at that time[…] they were savagely raped.” Also survivor Salomé Armando Gómez Hernández declared on December 1, 1995 that “[he had seen] that the men were beaten with the weapons and kicked to the ground […] and women were pulled [b]y their hair and kicked.” Additionally, on the same date witness César Franco Ibáñez declared that “they also began […] raping girls[,] you could hear the screams and wails […] of the girls being raped.” The Court verifies that in relation to the facts described, as well as the CEH report of 1999, the State had official knowledge of alleged acts of torture against the population and children of the community, as well as abortions and other types of sexual violence against girls and women, perpetrated during three days (supra para. 78 to 81). However, the State did not initiate an investigation to clarify what occurred or charge those responsible146. 139. The Court notes, as context, that as indicated by the CEH, during the armed conflict women were particularly chosen as victims of sexual violence. Likewise, in another case occurred within the same context as this massacre, the Court established as a proven fact that “[t]he rape of women was a State practice, executed in the context of massacres, directed to destroying the dignity of women at a cultural, social, family, and individual level.147” In the case of Las Dos Erres, pregnant women were subject to induced abortions and other barbaric acts (supra para. 79 to 81). Likewise, in the expert opinion of psychologist Nieves Gómez Dupuis, performed in August 2005, it was indicated that “exemplifying torture, rape, and acts of extreme cruelty caused the victims […] grave damages to their mental integrity.148” 140. In this regard, the Court deems that the lack of investigation of grave facts against humane treatment such as torture and sexual violence in armed conflicts and/or systematic patterns149, constitutes a breach of the State’s obligations in relation to grave human rights violations, which infringe non-revocable laws150 (jus cogens) and generate obligations for the States151 such as investigating and 146 In conformity with the legislation effective in Guatemala at the time of the facts (Articles 27 and 69 of the Criminal Code of Guatemala of 1973) the State had the possibility of investigating and identifying the different crimes and those who committed them. 147 Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 143, para. 49.19. 148 Cf. Expert opinion of Nieves Gómez Dupuis of August 2005 “regarding the damages to the mental health of the victims due to the Massacre of the Las Dos Erres Community […] and the measures for psychosocial reparation” (appendixes to the application, appendix 8, f. 2811). 149 In this regard, it is worth noting that in international law different courts have ruled on this, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which has qualified sexual violence as comparable to torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, when it has been committed within a systematic practice against the civil population, or with the intention of obtaining information, punishing, intimidating, humiliating, or discriminating the victim or a third party. Cf. ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija. Judgment, Dec. 10, 1998. para. 267.i, 295; ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al (Celebici case). Judgment, Nov. 16, 1998. para. 941; ICTY, Appeals Ch. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al (Celebici case). Judgment, Feb. 20, 2001. para. 488, 501; and ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. Judgment, Feb. 22, 2001. para. 656, 670, 816. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has also compared rape to torture, indicating that the former can constitute torture if committed by or with the acknowledgements, consent, or instigation of a public officer. Cf. ICTR, Trial Ch I. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Jean-Paul. Judgment, Sep. 2, 1998. para. 687, 688. On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that rape can constitute torture when it has been committed by state agents against people in their custody. Cf. ECHR. Case of Aydin v. Turkey. Judgment, Sep. 25, 1997. Para. 86, 87, and Case of Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia. Judgment. Jul. 7, 2008. Para. 108. 150 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 19, para. 128; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 34, para. 132, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 59. 151 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 19, para. 131.