75 324. The Commission therefore believes that the discrimination that was the context in which the egregious events described and analyzed in this report occurred and of which the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities were victim, constituted an expression of the racial discrimination practiced against the Maya people during the armed conflict in Guatemala. Therefore, the IACHR considers that the massacres, persecution and extermination of the villagers of Chichupac and neighboring communities, which were planned and orchestrated by the State, were in themselves violations of Articles 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention because they were predicated on discrimination. 325. The Commission also considers that the failure of the State authorities charged with investigating and prosecuting the crimes committed in this case to respond swiftly and effectively to the events, also constituted a violation of those articles. Both the occurrence of acts constituting genocide and confirmation of a pattern of racial discrimination in the form of the stigmatization and persecution of members of the Maya people as sympathizers of the insurgency, demanded special diligence of Guatemala in its investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators. The Commission observes that this degree of special diligence was glaringly absent in the Guatemalan courts’ response –as it was explained in detail in the previous section. 326. The IACHR has written the following concerning Guatemala: impunity for serious violations of human rights committed during the internal armed conflict against the members of the Mayan population, reached levels of such magnitude that the only possible conclusion is that the vestiges of a racist and discriminatory culture continue to permeate large sectors and areas of Guatemalan society, and are particularly apparent in the 408 justice system [and] the impunity of those responsible for violations of the Mayan people’s human rights during the armed conflict […] and the lack of investigation of acts of discrimination against members of Guatemalan indigenous populations, affect not only the rule of law, but also 409 the dignity of the people. 327. Therefore, by failing to diligently investigate and prosecute the serious crimes and racism of which the members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities were victims and thereby perpetuating the cycle of racial discrimination that resulted in the crimes committed in the present case, the Guatemalan courts have violated Article 24 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 328. Finally, before proceeding to express its conclusions, the Commission considers it pertinent to refer to what the State has indicated with regard to a group of victims who had resorted to the NPR for reparations related to the facts in the present case. In this regard, the Commission reaffirms that the obligation to provide reparations emerges as a direct consequence of the State’s responsibility, derived from a violation of the Convention, and for that reason, it requires integral and adequate reparations as a result of the violations found in this report410. 408 IACHR, Justice and Social Inclusion: the challenges of democracy in Guatemala, December 29, 2003, par.241. 409 IACHR, Justice and Social Inclusion: the challenges of democracy in Guatemala, December 29, 2003, par.247. 410 I/A Court H.R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, par. 221.