69 proceedings 256 and it is not clear to the Court why they were included. Also, on November 11, 2002, the Civil Registrar sent the certifications of the death certificates requested, indicating that “most of them were not found in the respective books.” 257 However, there is no record of any subsequent action in this regard. All this demonstrates a lack of rigor in the investigation. 228. Eighth, in the months of October 2000, 258 November 2002, 259 and July and August 2005, 260 at least 18 persons testified during the proceedings. These persons denounced, inter alia, the death and disappearance of family members, forced displacement, forced labor, violence and rape, the hardships and persecution they suffered, torture, the burning of houses and crops, and the theft of livestock. There is no record of any investigative process in relation to these facts. This point will be addressed in section B.2 below. 229. Finally, and as a ninth point, there is no record of any investigative activity after September 2005, 261 the date on which several statements were received, and until March 2011, the date on which various statements were received as preliminary evidence. 262 Nor is there any evidence of any follow-up of the information gathered on those occasions. B.1.1.2. Non-compliance with the duty to guarantee the participation of the next of kin 230. The Court recalls that, in accordance with the right recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, States Parties have the obligation to guarantee the right of victims or their next of kin to participate in all stages of the respective proceedings, so that they can make submissions, receive information, offer evidence, formulate arguments and, in short, assert their rights. The purpose of such participation must be to have access to justice, to know the truth about what happened, and to obtain fair compensation. 263 On this point, the For example, there is no statement regarding the death Andrea Sical, whose name appears on the list mentioned. Cf. Official letter of the Civil Registrar of the municipality of Rabinal of November 11, 2002 (evidence file, folio 479). 258 Cf. Statement of María Teresa Sic Osorio of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 428 to 431); statement of Miguel Sic Osorio of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 432 to 436); statement of Pedro Chen Sic of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 437 to 442); statement of Alberto Juarez Valey of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 443 to 446); statement of Aurelio Juárez López of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 447 to 450); statement of Sebastián Chen Tahuico of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 451 to 453); statement of Domingo Chen Tahuico of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 454 to 458); statement of Miguel Chen Tahuico of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 459 to 462); statement of Máxima Emiliana García Valey of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 463 to 469); statement of Máxima Sic González of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 471 to 474). All these statements refer to File No, MP36-00-7 before two assistant prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service in the village of Chichupac, but not to File No. 255-93-Of.; however, they are included in the certification of File No. 001-2005-95839. The statements of Domingo Chen Tahuico and Miguel Chen Tahuico have no file number or date but are filed among the statements of October 25, 2000. 259 Cf. Statement of Vicenta Mendoza Alvarado of November 15, 2002 (evidence file, folios 475 to 478). 260 Cf. Statement of Pedro Chen Sic of July 12, 2005 (evidence file, folios 733 to 740); statement of Máxima Emiliana García Valey of July 12, 2005 (evidence file, folios 748 to 754); Statement of Miguel Chen Tahuico of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8727 to 8731); statement of Ana Calate Sic of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8737 to 8740); statement of Domingo Chen Tahuico of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8741 to 8742); statement of Francisca Calate Sic of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8743 to 8744); statement of Félix Valey Galiego of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8745 to 8747); statement of Pedro Sic Gonzalez of July 27, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8748 to 8749); statement of Miguel Sic Osorio of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8750 and 8751); statement of Pedro Chen Sic of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8754 and 8755); statement of Sebastián Chen Tahuico of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8760 to 8762); statement of Teresa Cacaj Cahuec of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8752 and 8753); statement of Susana Pancan of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8756 and 8757); statement of Fabiana Chen Galiego of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8758 and 8759); statement of María Teresa Sic Osorio of August 16, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8763 and 8766); statement of Miguel Sic Osorio of July 12, 2005 (evidence file, folios 757 to 761), and statement of Domingo Chen Tahuico of July 12, 2005 (evidence file, folios 757 to 761). 261 Cf. Statement of Máxima Emiliana García Valey of September 14, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8773 and 8774), and statement of Fabiana Chen Galiego of September 14, 2005 (evidence file, folios 8775 and 8776). 262 Cf. Records of witness statements of March 10, May 24, and August 5, 2011 of Pedro Chen Sic, Félix Valey Galiego, Pedro Sic Gonzalez, María Teresa Sic Osorio and Susana Pancan (evidence file, folios 9910 to 9918). Although these records state that the statements and interrogations were “duly recorded on audio,” the respective recordings were not attached. 263 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 233, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 269. 256 257