42 punishing those practices, in conformity with the American Convention and in this case in light of the CIPST and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 141. Based on the foregoing, the State should have initiated, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation of all of the facts of the massacre related to the violation of the right to life and other specific violations against humane treatment, such as the alleged torture and acts of violence against women, with a gender perspective and in conformity with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and the specific obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará152. C.2 Lack of investigation of those responsible and other omissions 142. Regarding the lack of investigation, arrest, and punishment of those responsible, both the representatives and the Commission have indicated that during the course of the investigation there have been a series of acts or omissions by the state authorities which constitute a lack of due diligence and the denial of justice. They have indicated that: the state authorities have thwarted the investigation, which is reflected in that none of the masterminds are being investigated; the arrest warrants against the accused have not been made effective; some witnesses in the investigation have been threatened or intimidated and were forced to leave the country; and the exhumation and identification of the victims of the massacre has not been finished. In this regard, the State acknowledged to the claims of the Commission and the representatives with regards to the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. 143. The Court notes that according to the facts indicated in the background (supra para. 76 and 77), at least 60 soldiers participated in the execution of the massacre, without counting other perpetrators, masterminds, and general participants in the facts153. However, as derived from the current investigation in the domestic jurisdiction, only 20 people have been identified, hence the investigations have not covered all of the allegedly responsible individuals. Likewise, several judicial authorities have ordered and reiterated the arrest of at least 17 accused at different times154. Nevertheless, only one of them was arrested, but was subsequently released (supra para. 90). Consequently, the Court notes that in general these orders have not been carried out, and the State itself has recognized this. 152 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 27, para. 378. 153 In the investigation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the testimonies of different people were heard, “including: survivors, next of kin of the victims [the deceased…], Commander of the Post at Las Cruces, Commander of Military zone number 23, the Army High Commander of that time, the soldiers who comprised the High Command of Military Zone 23.” In this regard, according to the information provided by the State, from this investigation it was established that the alleged fact was caused by a patrol comprised of “approximately […] 20 persons [with] the support [of] a squad of 40 soldiers from Military Zone 23” and that it was possible to “identify the kaibiles, but not the soldiers of the [aforementioned] Military Zone” (State’s brief on the answer to the application, fs. 417 and 418). Subsequently, the investigation was initiated in relation to 16 accused, and the corresponding arrest warrants were issued, which have not been made effective to date (State’s brief on final arguments, f. 1178). 154 In April of 2000 the Court of First Instance of Petén reiterated twice the 17 arrest warrants issued on October 7, 1999 and April 4, 2000 (supra para. 89). Nine of these were suspended as a result of the Judgments of the Constitutional Court of April 3 and 4, 2001 (supra para. 90), and seven remained effective, which were reiterated on March 7, 2002 (supra para. 92). On December 8, 2004 the Constitutional Court ordered the judge on the case to annul all proceedings as of December 28, 1996 (supra para. 99).