38 following a complaint filed in March 1993 128 and which is still under investigation, and ii) a case filed with the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala, who issued a decision on September 2, 1996 regarding the clandestine cemeteries located in the village of Chichupac. 129 122. In addition, nine files were opened related to the facts committed before and after the massacre of January 8, 1982: seven before the District Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Salamá and two before the Municipal Prosecutor's Office of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rabinal. In these files, between 1995 and 2010, disappearances, executions, forced displacement, sexual violence and rape, acts of torture and forced labor, among others, were denounced. There is no evidence of any efforts or actions aimed at determining those responsible in seven of these nine files. On the contrary, the actions in five of these case files 130 were limited to the exhumation of remains and, in some cases, their delivery to the next of kin. In the other two case files 131 there is no record of any investigative activity whatsoever. Finally, in Case File No. 802-95-Of. 6 and M.P. 247-2006-441 there are some actions aimed at determining responsibilities, but these were minimal. This, despite the fact that members of the Army and/or the PAC were held responsible for the facts and that on several occasions the complainants even provided the names of said persons and the places where they could be located, 132 as well as the names of possible witnesses. 123. Although the State argued that, as of 2011, “various events that occurred in that region” are under investigation in File MP001-2012-364, allegedly processed by the Special Cases Unit of the Internal Armed Conflict of the Human Rights Section of the Prosecutor’s Office, Guatemala did not provide documentation to support this claim or to allow the Court to evaluate the proceedings in that file, even though this was requested by the Court. 133 representatives (formerly petitioners) to the Commission (evidence file, folios 378 to 379). There is no record in file No. 001-2005-95839 of a resolution in which the Special Cases Unit takes cognizance of the case, nor are there any further actions by the Special Cases Unit. Therefore, there is no record of whether both File 1083-95 M.P. and File M.P. 247/1999/492 with Case No. 255-93 Of. 4 before the Criminal Court of First Instance for Drug-related Activity and Environmental Crimes of Baja Verapaz became part of File No. 001-2005-95839 before the Special Cases and Human Rights Violations Unit of the Public Prosecutor's Office, but it is understood that this was the case. The Commission indicated that Annex 7 to the Merits Report corresponds to File No. 001-2005-95839. This was not disputed by the State. Within this annex there are documents without case numbers or with different case numbers, such as cases No. 916-97 Of. 4, No. 492-99 Of. 7, No. 255-93 Of. 4, and MP-36-00-7. Most of the file relates to Case No. 255-93 Of. 4, which is also found in Annex 9 to the Merits Report. In Annex 9 there are documents missing from Annex 7 and vice versa. 128 Cf. Complaint filed by Ana Calate Sic on March 29, 1993 (evidence file, folios 729 and 730). 129 Cf. Resolution of the Human Rights Ombudsman of September 2, 1996 on the files related to the clandestine cemeteries located at Plan de Sánchez, Raxtuj, Chichupac and Río Negro, Rabinal, Baja Verapaz (evidence file, folios 1869 to 1879). 130 These files are: i) No. 87-97 before the District Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service; ii) Case No. 255-93 Of. 4 (File 1083-95 M.P.) before the District Prosecutor’s Office of Salamá; iii) Case No. 247-2003-1142 before the District Prosecutor’s Office of Salamá; iv) Case No. 248-2010-263 before the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Rabinal, and v) File No. M.P. 247-1997-1378 before the District Prosecutor’s Office of Salamá. 131 These files are: i) No. 811-95 Of. 1 before the District Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Salamá and ii) No. 248-2006-169 before the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Rabinal. 132 Complaint filed by Máxima Emiliana García Valey and Francisco Sic Chen on May 9, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1577), and Statement of Juana García Depaz of February 8, 2010 (evidence file, folios 9003 to 9005). 133 During the public hearing, Judge Eduardo Ferrer asked the State to clarify “how many criminal proceedings are open, how many have been joined and what stage they are at.” Through a note of the Secretariat dated May 12, 2016, the State was requested to answer the questions posed by the Judges of the Court in said hearing and to submit “the relevant supporting documentation.”