widespread impunity that, in itself, has been recognized as one of the most serious violations of human rights that occurred in Guatemala and has been one of the key factors contributing to the persistence of human rights violations, and also criminal and social violence. It also noted that the State had not assumed the investigation of this case as an inherent State obligation and the investigation had not been addressed at the effective identification, pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible, in order to make a full examination of the harm caused to the inhabitants of Los Josefinos. In addition, the investigation was not aimed at the identification and return of the remains of those who died in the massacre. 96. The Commission also found that it had been proved that the Army and the Ministry of Defense had directly obstructed the investigations; the latter not only, first, refused to respond to the requests for information alleging that the requested information constituted a “State secret,” but also, when it did respond, did so only partially and did not hand over all the information requested or allow the Public Prosecution Service to verify the inexistence of certain archives and denied it the possibility of presenting arguments regarding the Army’s categorization of some documents as “secret.” It added that the investigation was not concluded within a reasonable time, all of this to the detriment of the right of the victims and their families to know the truth about what happened promptly. The Commission concluded that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection guaranteed in 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the duty to respect rights established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the family members of the victims of the massacre, the victims of forced disappearance, and all the surviving victims. 97. The representatives argued that the facts of this case were “extremely serious” and should be considered as crimes against humanity. They also argued the following: a) The State did not open an investigation ex officio. b) When the investigations were opened, the State failed to act with due diligence. c) The military authorities openly obstructed the investigations; the military institution maintained a negative position, shielding itself by a policy of “State secrets,” and asserting that the requested information was confidential under Guatemalan law. d) The investigations were not addressed at determining the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. e) The investigations were not addressed at investigating, prosecuting and punishing all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, but rather at ensuring their impunity. f) The State failed to comply with its duty to ensure the safety of the participants in the proceedings: the prosecutors, the anthropologists and even the victims who have been parties to the proceedings have received threats. g) The State incurred in an unjustified delay in the investigation of the massacre. 98. They also argued that the Guatemalan State had violated the right to the truth of the surviving victims of the massacre, and of the family members of the disappeared victims and that, in this specific case, this right was derived from Articles 1(1), 8(1), 13 and 25 of the Convention. In addition, in the case of violence against women, as in this case, in which women were the target of the scorched earth policy, the general obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were supplemented and reinforced for those State that are Parties to the Convention of Belém do Pará, with all the obligations derived from that specific inter-American treaty. 31