77 250. In this judgment, the Court has already established that it does not have temporal jurisdiction to rule on a large part of the facts and human rights violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 24). Therefore, the Court does not have the evidence to make such a determination as requested by the Commission and the representatives, in the event that this would be appropriate. 308 Nevertheless, the Court recalls that Guatemala ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) on January 13, 1950, that is, prior to the facts of the instant case, and Article I of said treaty requires the contracting parties to punish this crime. 309 251. Likewise, in this case it has already been established that, under the “National Security Doctrine” (1978-1983), the Army identified members of the Maya indigenous people, inter alia, as the “enemy within,” considering that they were, or could become, the social base of the guerrillas (supra paras. 77 and 84). As mentioned previously, in its Final Report of June 1999, the CEH explained that the identification made between the Maya communities and the insurgency, and the brutal and indiscriminate nature of the “military operations [carried out] against hundreds of Mayan communities in the west and northwest of the country, particularly between 1981 and 1983,” was based on traditional racist prejudices. In addition, taking into account the massacres perpetrated in the villages of Plan de Sánchez, Río Negro and Chichupac, among others, the CEH stated that: “the set of human rights violations perpetrated by the State against the Maya-Achí population between 19801983 allows us to conclude that acts of genocide were committed inspired by a strategic determination that also had a genocidal character, since the objective of the military campaign carried out in the area of Rabinal was the partial destruction of the Maya-Achí people, as a necessary requirement to maintain absolute control over a militarily strategic area and separate the guerrillas from their supposed social base. […] This perception of equivalence of identity between the Maya-Achí population of Rabinal and the guerrillas led, at one point during the conflict, to a campaign aimed at the partial annihilation of the Maya-Achí people of Rabinal, who were in a state of total defenselessness.” 310 252. The Court recalls that the cases of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre and the Río Negro Massacres, both heard by this Court, also involved massacres, executions, rape and torture, which took place in the first half of the 1980s in the context of Guatemala’s internal armed conflict, all against members of the Maya Achí people, including children, women and men who lived in the villages and communities of the municipality of Rabinal, and attributed to members of the State security forces. In the case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, the commission of various crimes, including genocide, was denounced in June 1997. 311 253. In this context, on September 2, 1996, the Human Rights Ombudsman issued a resolution concerning the clandestine cemeteries located in the villages of Plan de Sánchez, Río Negro and Chichupac, among others, in which he indicated that the massacres committed in those places were not isolated and constituted crimes against humanity. He stated that those directly responsible were “the civilian and military authorities who, at the time the acts were committed, exercised jurisdiction over the places where the events took place,” as well as “the governments of the Republic at the time of the events and the Ministers of National Defense and the Interior under those governments.” He also recommended to the Attorney General of the Nation, “a severe, swift and continuing investigation and prosecution of these extremely grave events, until those responsible are punished.” 312 In this regard, the Court clarifies that, in the case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre and the Rio Negro Massacres, it did not reject per se the possibility of applying the legal definition of genocide in the context of its contentious jurisdiction to declare violations of the American Convention, but limited itself to a legal analysis of the specific circumstances of each case. Cf. Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 51, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 234. 309 Article I of the CPPCG states: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” 310 CEH, Memory of Silence, Chapter XXI, pages 375 and 376. 311 Cf. Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 42.42. 312 Resolution of the Human Rights Ombudsman of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folios 1869 to 1879). 308