91 [t]he commandoes that carried them out were formed by groups of five to eight individuals, including the executors, the drivers, and those keeping watch. As part of covert operations, there were no written orders, identification of the members of the commando was through pseudonyms, and the vehicles and weapons used did not have registration numbers that could link to the origin of the operation. In general, these extra-legal executions were decisions of the commander of the respective intelligence body in the area, although certain cases were consulted beforehand with the highest levels of military intelligence. In some cases in which trouble was foreseen, the decisions were often coordinated with the heads of other security forces, advising even the directors of the National Police, for them to previously clean the area and not interfere when the commando left it. Ordinarily the executions did not include prior warnings to the victim, although there was a discrete plan to follow them for eight and up to fifteen days. The victim was followed to establish customary reference points regarding his or her movements, such as place of residence and of work. [...] Most of the times the orders were direct and there was no discussion, and a brief report was subsequently required regarding the outcome, as well as destruction of evidence such as reports, and so forth. The system included following the person for several days or weeks to establish his or her movements. In general, the way the person was killed, the day and how they would flee were decided by the specialist in charge of the kidnapping or murder, taking into account that it should look like a common crime or make their identification difficult (for example, in darkness), at an appropriate time (without witnesses) and, if applicable, to ensure that the person would not be left wounded. This was the system in many murders of leaders or intellectuals, as in the case of Myrna Mack. […] Very often the intelligence actions continued after the crime, leading to destruction or alteration of evidence, threats against witnesses and members of the family, and so forth, obstructing any investigation, to ensure the impunity of their actions.”239 148. In this regard, the CEH reached the conclusion that: taking into account all the information gathered, the CEH is convinced that the murder of Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang was committed by an agent of the State in his capacity as an active member of the Presidential General Staff (EMP), carrying out orders received from other officers of this military advisory body, and her death is a grave violation of the right to life.240 149. The third phase of the military intelligence operation consisted of covering up, insofar as possible, all the direct perpetrators and accessories of the operation, so as to ensure their impunity in the instant case to be able to continue acting in a clandestine manner, without any control, and to continue performing illegal acts (supra paras. 134.11 to 134.13). In this regard, the State itself acknowledged that “military influence might be a factor affecting the difficulties and irregularities in the proceeding.”241 Likewise, the CEH pointed out that “[m]ost of the arbitrary executions committed by agents of the State were complemented by other acts and maneuvers directed at avoiding or obstructing investigation by the judges, thus intensifying the climate of impunity.”242 239 Cf. Report by the Proyecto Interdiocesano de Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica, “Guatemala: Nunca Más: los mecanismos del horror,” volume II, page 189. 240 Cf. report by the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio” in June, 1999, volume VI, page 243 (file with annexes to the application, annex 42, leaf 792). 241 Cf. report by the Government of the Republic of Guatemala to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, pages 2 and 3 (file with annexes to the application, annex 10, leaves 232 to 233).