78 254. On October 25, 2000 and July 12, 2005, Miguel Sic Osorio appeared before the Internal Affairs Unit of the Prosecutor’s Office for Administrative Crimes 313 and declared that “due to discrimination, the patrolmen and the military commissioners […] wanted to get rid of us because they said that they wanted to do away with the Indians.” He also stated that, “before the massacre, there were people who practiced the Mayan religion, but in the massacre all the Maya priests were killed.” 314 The Court also notes that on July 18, 2013, the assistant prosecutor of the Municipal Prosecution Service of Rabinal indicated to the judge of the Criminal Court of First Instance for Drug-related Activity and Environmental Crimes that the facts denounced by Juana García Depaz included “crimes against humanity.” 315 Similarly, File M.P. 247/1999/492 of Case 255-93 Of. 4, contains an official letter from the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Baja Verapaz addressed to the Prosecutor's Office of the Unit for Special Cases and Human Rights Violations, dated June 14, 2006, in which in which the file “referring to the genocide committed in the Village of Chichupac, [M]unicipality of Rabinal [...]” is forwarded […].” 316 255. From the foregoing it is clear that, at least since 1996, the State had knowledge of the existence of possible crimes against humanity in the municipality of Rabinal, and at least since June 1999, when the CEH published its Final Report, it had knowledge that the acts committed in this case were possibly motivated by racist ideas and/or constituted acts of genocide. Therefore, the State had the obligation to investigate the facts taking into account these allegations. However, there is no evidence that this was done, despite the fact that the Court requested such information from the State. Thus, Guatemala cannot allege that “the crime of genocide would not be applicable to the facts of the case” without there being evidence that an investigation has been carried out in this regard in order to clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities. 256. Finally, with regard to the failure to investigate the rapes committed by State security agents in the instant case, the Court considers that whenever there is evidence of sexual violence in the context of an internal armed conflict, it should not be treated as a collateral crime, but rather its investigation should form part of each stage of the overall strategy for investigating possible torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes or acts of genocide that may have been committed. 317 The investigation of sexual violence should be carried out with respect for the 313 It is not clear to the Court why the Internal Affairs Unit attached to the Office of the Prosecutor for Administrative Crimes was approached or at what point the file was passed to the Special Cases and Human Rights Violations Unit of the Public Prosecutor's Office. 314 Statement of Miguel Sic Osorio before the Internal Affairs Unit attached to the Prosecutor’s Office for Administrative Crimes the July 12, 2005(evidence file, folios 757 to 761), and statement of Miguel Sic Osorio of October 25, 2000 (evidence file, folios 432 to 436). 315 Cf. Brief of the assistant prosecutor of the Municipal Prosecutor’s Office of Rabinal of July 18, 2013 (evidence file, folio 11758). Said brief contains reference No. MP248-2006-441. There is inconsistency with respect to the number of this file. It is recorded in the evidentiary record that the disappearance of Juana García Depaz's relatives was denounced within Case File M.P. 247-2006-441, through Complaint MP247/2006/648 filed by Juana García Depaz on June 13, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1404 and 1405). The pleadings and motions brief states that Case 648-2006/441 of the Rabinal Municipal Prosecutor's Office concerns the “disappearance of Adrián Garcia Manuel, Hugo Garcia de Paz and Abraham Alvarado Tecú.” However, no further information is provided in this regard. The FAFG report mentions that this case is registered under File 247-2006-44 M.P. 316 Cf. Official letter of the assistant prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of Baja Verapaz of June 14, 2006 (evidence file, folio 8806). 317 This Court has repeatedly stated that sexual violence perpetrated by State agents can constitute torture. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 128, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 118 and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, paras. 195 and 196. Moreover, sexual violence can, in certain circumstances, constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity or an act of genocide. Cf. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, ratified by Guatemala on May 14, 1952; Article 4.2.e of the Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts, signed by Guatemala on December 12, 1977 and ratified on October 19, 1987; Article 7(1)(g) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; Article 5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribuof the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); Article 3 of the Statute of the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for