7 17. That the Court values the State’s acknowledgment and, in response to its express request, it deems necessary to highlight its uniform case law in respect of Guatemala in relation to the systematic human rights violations committed during the armed conflict, impunity, and the State’s duty to fight it. Furthermore, this Court deems it pertinent and necessary to mention some standards laid down by the Court in past decisions as well as international standards, related to due diligence in the investigation of forced disappearances. 18. That the Court has found to have been established that, between 1962 and 1996, there was an internal armed conflict in Guatemala which entailed significant human, economic, institutional and moral costs.7 19. That the Court has held that the fact that Guatemala was experiencing an internal armed conflict, “instead of exonerating the State from its obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, placed it under the obligation to act in accordance with such obligations.”8 20. That this Court has established in several cases regarding Guatemala that forced disappearance of persons in that country constituted a State practice during the internal armed conflict, carried out mainly by officers of the security forces, through which members of insurgent movements or people identified as prone to insurgency were captured and held secretly without notifying a competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority, and then physically and psychologically tortured in order to obtain information, and even murdered.9 It has been estimated that “more than two hundred thousand people” were victims of arbitrary executions and forced disappearances during said conflict.10 21. That, furthermore, the Court has noted that impunity became a determining factor that is part of the systematic patterns that facilitated gross human rights violations during the armed conflict.11 Specifically, the Court held that “the Guatemalan administration of justice system resulted ineffective in ensuring compliance with the law and protection of the rights of the victims […] in almost [all] human rights violations committed during that period of time” and that, “[t]hus, the lack of investigation into this type of incidents constituted a determining factor in the systematic practice of human rights violations.”12 22. That, in addition, in a case brought before the Court it was held that “to date, the courts in Guatemala have been incapable of effectively investigating, prosecuting, 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 121(b) and 207; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 134(8) and 134(10); Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 58(1); Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, para. 40(6); Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42(1), and Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 48. 8 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 207. 9 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 132; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 40(1), and Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 49. 10 Cf. Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 48 (quote from Cf. Historical Clarification Commission (CEH), Memory of Silence, Volume V, Conclusions and Recommendations, page 21). 11 Cf. Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 70. 12 Cf. Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 51.