I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On November 30, 2010, in keeping with the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of the Río Negro Massacres with regard to the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State” or “Guatemala”). This case originated in the petition lodged by the Asociación para el Desarrollo Integral de las Víctimas de la Violencia en las Verapaces (hereinafter “ADIVIMA”) on July 19, 2005. The Inter-American Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 13/08 on March 5, 2008, and, under Article 50 of the Convention, issued Merits Report No. 86/10 on July 14, 2010, with a series of recommendations to the State.2 The Merits Report was notified to Guatemala on July 30, 2010, and the State was granted two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. On October 4, 2010, the State requested a onemonth extension to submit information on compliance with the recommendations made by the Commission. This extension was granted on October 30, 2010, and the Commission ordered the State to submit information by November 20, 2010, at the latest. However, the State did not submit the necessary information and, consequently, the Commission submitted the case to the Court “owing to the State’s failure to comply with the recommendations and the resulting need to obtain justice in the case.” The Commission appointed Commissioner Dinah Shelton and the then Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and Deputy Executive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and Karla I. Quintana Osuna and Isabel Madariaga Cuneo, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. According to the Inter-American Commission, this case deals with “the destruction of the Mayan community of Río Negro by means of a series of massacres perpetrated by the Guatemalan Army and members of the Civil Self-defense Patrols in 1980 and 1982; the persecution and elimination of its members and the subsequent violations directed against the survivors, including the failure to investigate the said events. In particular, the Commission submits this case due to the denial of justice ever since the acts were perpetrated, and the consequent impunity that persists to this day.” In addition, the Commission indicated that “the facts reported to the Court include, among others, those relating to the forced disappearances, forced displacement, and violations of the personal integrity of the next of kin and survivors, the destruction of the community’s social fabric, the failure to identify the persons executed and disappeared […], the consequent failure to bury them in keeping with Mayan traditions, the impossibility of the survivors returning to their lands, the lack of protection for children, accusations of being ‘guerrillas, the social base of the guerrillas, internal enemies and subversives,’ discrimination, as well as the [alleged] failure to conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the multiple violations that occurred during and after the massacres.” The Commission also alleged that the facts of this case “[…] fit within a more general context of massacres in Guatemala that were planned by State agents as part of a ‘scorched earth’ policy aimed by the Guatemalan 2 In Admissibility Report No. 86/10, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights; as well as for failure to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of the presumed victims indicated in the said Report. 5