52 the Mayan people during the most violent period of the armed conflict, and the evidence submitted by the parties demonstrate that the various massacres, executions, disappearances, and other acts committed against the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities were part of a State strategy intended to annihilate an ethnic group by means of military operations in which thousands of Mayan indigenous persons were slaughtered, the survivors forced to flee, their subsistence economies destroyed and, lastly, thousands of Mayan indigenous persons were intentionally forced into living conditions that made them dependent on the military structure. 228. According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, two elements must be present for the acts in question to qualify as genocide: any of the acts listed under Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 317 and the intent to destroy the group. Concerning the first element, the Commission deems that in the present case systematic massacres were perpetrated against members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities; serious bodily or mental harm was inflicted upon them; and they were deliberately subjected to subhuman living conditions as survivors were forced to seek safe haven in the mountains for years. As for the second element, it is clear that the factor that all the victims had in common –including children, women, the elderly, men and leaders- was that they were members of a given ethnic group (the Mayan community of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities) and there are multiple contextual factors that demonstrate that the actions were perpetrated with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part,” that group, which had been identified as a target of attack because it was considered to fall within the concept of an “enemy within”. 229. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the facts of this case fit the crime of genocide, as there is sufficient evidence that the State planned a strategy to eliminate, at least in part, the Mayan people, through systematic massacres and other military operations, salient among them the scorchedearth operations. Based on the criteria established under international law, the Commission concludes that the massacres, killings and forced disappearances committed in the present case are particularly heinous as they fall within the definition of genocide, whose targets in this case were the Mayan people. 2.3. Concerning the rapes (articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 230. The IACHR has consistently held that rape committed by members of the security forces of a state against the civilian population constitutes, in any situation, a serious violation of the human rights protected by Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention.318 All acts of rape inflict severe and 317 The pertinent part of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, provides that “[…] genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group 318 IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Case 12,579, August 2, 2009, par.60; Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Inés