49. The State, in its communication of December 5, 2006, once again indicated that as part of the measures adopted to secure the arrest of José Antonio Solares, searches and checks have been carried out, without any positive results thus far. It adds that the Public Ministry reported that requests continue to be made of various departments to determine José Antonio Solares’s whereabouts. It also notes that on August 1 and September 25, 2006, the arrest warrant was reiterated to the corresponding department of the Public Ministry. The State further reports that the Presidential Commission on Human Rights has ordered that the instant case be made known to the Comité de Impulso (Impetus Committee), which handles the cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 50. With respect to the petitioners’ position to the effect that the State is protecting Mr. José Antonio Solares, the State argued that according to the Constitution of Guatemala, the Public Ministry has autonomous functions, the main purposes of which are to see to the strict enforcement of the laws. In this context it notes that due to the form of government in Guatemala, in which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are independent in the performance of their functions, and in which subordination among them is prohibited, it is not possible for the State to protect Mr. José Antonio Solares González. 51. In a communication of March 30, 2007, the State indicated the following with respect to the constitutional motion filed by the defense attorney for the accused: (a) The judgment in the case was handed down on March 21, 2006. (b) As of this date signatures are being collected in the judgment on the merits. (c) When the judgment becomes firm, the record will be referred by means of the corresponding document containing the final judgment to the Criminal Court for Drug-trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Salamá, department of Baja Verapaz, for the matter to continue to be 32 processed in that judicial body. 52. The State, in the communications sent to the Commission, has indicated that the petition should be found inadmissible based on the provisions at Article 46 of the American Convention and Articles 31 and 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 53. The observations submitted by the State on August 14, 2007, indicate that the information provided by the petitioners on May 7, 2007, consists of a correction and addition to the complaint sent to the Guatemalan State on May 4, 2006. In this regard, the State in its observations brief concludes that “it considers itself informed of the petitioners’ additional submission related to the massacre carried out in the community of Río Negro on March 13, 1982.” 54. With respect to the corrections and additions related to the massacres that occurred in other villages or communities, the State takes the following position: That notwithstanding the existence of the legitimate right of the victims of the massacres that occurred in the communities of Los Encuentros and the village of Agua Fría, which is recognized by the State, to lodge a complaint regarding the massacres before the inter-American system, it is the position of the State that these and other massacres should be presented through separate and individual petitions, and not as an amendment to the initial petition in the instant case. Considering the foregoing, and based on the initial petition, the State considers that in the instant case only the facts derived from the massacre of March 13, 1982, should be added, and that the only petitions and observations that should be taken into account are those related to the criminal proceeding initiated in the wake of the massacre described above and that is currently pending. Specifically, in the human rights enshrined in the Convention, which the petitioners allege were violated due to the events of March 13, 1982, and which were described in the initial petition and 32 See State’s brief of March 30, 2007. 9