39 138. The representative claimed that the right to equal protection before the law was infringed beginning with the flaws and delays of the investigation. It considered that the condition of poverty and extreme poverty of many of the victims may also be deemed discriminator with respect to obtaining justice because of the high costs and the State’s abandonment of infrastructure for the Mayan populations. 139. The State indicated that it conducted a diligent investigation that concluded with the punishment of the persons involved in the incident and its actions were not discriminatory in fact nor in law. B. Considerations of the Court 140. In the first place, the Court notes that the Commission and the representative did not specify the persons whose right to equal protection before the law might have been violated. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the arguments refer to all the persons deemed alleged victims. 141. As to the judicial proceedings, the Court has “established violations of Article 24 of the Convention when there has been an infringement to access of justice based on discriminatory criteria.”200 Nevertheless, the Court considers that a merely contextual situation is not sufficient to find such violation,201 but rather it is necessary that there be “specific acts of discrimination during the investigations that constitute obstacles [to access to justice], due to the [nature on which the discrimination is based].”202 The Court does not observe such specific acts in this case. In addition, it underscores that the judicial proceedings resulted in clarifying what occurred and in determining responsibilities. Thus, the “lack of prioritization” claimed by the Commission is not evident, nor has it been sufficiently proved nor has the supposed prejudicial impact been shown, as regards judicial actions, on the situation of poverty mentioned by the representative. 142. Therefore, the Court holds that Guatemala did not violate Article 24 of the American Convention. VIII. REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 143. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the Convention, 203 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 100 and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 258. 201 The Court notes that the expert opinion of Alejandro Rodríguez Barillas, incorporated as documentary evidence (evidence file, fs. 419 to 506), points out that “the State of Guatemala has maintained the conditions de facto, so that the indigenous peoples and, specifically, the achí Mayan people do not have access to justice.” 202 Cf. Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 258. In the case, the relevance of that nature to the Mayan people was alleged. 203 Article 63 of the Convention states that if the Court finds that “there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment 200