101 our lives were at risk and that we should not let anyone else know about this report, for whatever reason, because our lives would be at risk. Then, for that reason, he ordered that the November 4, 1990 report be submitted to the courts. 172. This behavior of the person acting as the highest police authority, who at the time was a member of the army, of hiding and manipulating the official account of the investigation to the judicial authorities, demonstrates that there was an attempt to cover-up those responsible for the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and this constitutes an obstruction of justice and an inducement for those responsible of the facts to remain in a situation of impunity. c) Manipulation of the evidence submitted by the Presidential General Staff and the Ministry of National Defense 173. The Court has deemed it proven that, in response to a request by the authorities in charge of the investigation, specifically of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Presidential General Staff and the Ministry of National Defense forwarded manipulated documents with the intention of concealing information that was important for elucidation of the facts. For example, the personal record of Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez, kept by the Presidential General Staff and the orders for deductions issued by the Military Medical Center from July 5 to September 18, 1990 (supra para. 134.90), stating that Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez had been “discharged” or “not in active duty” at the time of the facts, to avoid any link between the actions committed by Beteta Álvarez and the Presidential General Staff. 174. This behavior of the Presidential General Staff and of the Ministry of National Defense, manipulating the information requested by the courts, is also an act of obstruction of the administration of justice that seeks to provide impunity to the members of the Presidential General Staff involved, with the aim of avoiding a serious, impartial, and effective investigation of the murder of the victim. d) Official secret 175. The Court has deemed proven that the Ministry of National Defense, resorting to official secret regulated by Article 30 of the Political Constitution, has refused to supply certain documents pertaining to the functioning and structure of the Presidential General Staff; in other cases, said Ministry has supplied vague and imprecise information that did not satisfy the requirements of the judicial authorities and of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 134.90). 176. It has been proven that the Ministry of National Defense carried out this type of actions and, regarding this matter, witness Gabriela Vásquez Smerilli stated, in her testimony before the Court, that she had repeatedly requested eight documents from the Minister of Defense that had been requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with no satisfactory answer. The replies received were, for example: that the documents did not exist because they had been incinerated; that the information had been submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (but the information submitted had been different); or that the file requested did not exist. In other cases, the Minister of Defense provided information that was not what they had requested, or never supplied the information requested (supra para. 127.g). 177. Expert witness Henry El Khoury Jacob also stated to the Court, with respect to official secret, that in light of Article 30 of the Guatemalan Constitution “the judge is a sovereign authority and the public office cannot refuse. For this there is, let us