on the basis that it was not incumbent on a human rights court, such as this one, to make a determination of this type. 234. The Court has established in this Judgment that it does not have competence to rule on many of the facts and human rights violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives in this case (supra Chapters IV and V). Thus, the Court does not have the pertinent factual and legal elements to make a determination such as the one requested by the Commission and the representatives, should it be admissible. B.9. Conclusions 235. This Court finds that, under the American Convention, in force at the time of the massacres, the State had the obligation to investigate all the facts with due diligence, an obligation that was still pending when it recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on March 9, 1987. The said obligation was reaffirmed by the State by its ratification of the Convention against Torture, the Convention of Belém do Pará, and the Convention on Forced Disappearance (supra paras. 16). Consequently, the State should have ensured compliance with them as of their ratification. 236. This Court finds that the investigation into the facts of the massacres committed against the Río Negro Community has not been assumed by the State as its inherent obligation, and has not been directed at the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible, including both perpetrators and masterminds, in a way that ensured the full and exhaustive examination of the multiple violations perpetrated against the members of the Río Negro community within the specific context in which the facts of the instant case occurred. Furthermore, the investigation has not been designed to locate all the disappeared victims, or to find and to identify the remains that have been found in the various exhumations performed. In sum, the facts of this case remain in impunity. In this regard, this Court has indicated that its case law regarding the merits of cases and monitoring compliance with the judgments that are delivered “reveals that Guatemala has a grave problem with regard to the impunity that prevails in the country, specifically in relation to the systematic human rights violations that took place during the armed conflict.”312 237. Based on the foregoing considerations, as well as on the body of evidence in the instant case and the State's partial acknowledgement of international responsibility, this Court finds that Guatemala is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and also for non-compliance with the obligations established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture; Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Personas, and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the victims of this case, in their respective circumstances. 312 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, para. 25; Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, para. 16. The Court referred to the situation of impunity that prevails in the cases of Myrna Mack Chang, Tiu Tojín, Carpio Nicolle et al., Bámaca Velásquez, Molina Theissen, and the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), all against Guatemala. 83