64 […] During the years of the armed conflict, a number of developments occurred that disrupted the structures of indigenous authority and leadership. Indigenous authorities were killed, persecuted or replaced, and the dismantling of community organizations weakened the community as a whole, both as a group and as a people. […] Between 1980 and 1983, the military strategy was intended to destroy the structure of the Maya communities as social groups. It focused on destroying the authority-based order and organization and symbols of cultural identity. At its most extreme, the Army conducted operations to totally annihilate communities, and scorched-earth operations, massacres, 365 executions, torture, and rapes on a massive scale. […]. 277. In the present case it has been shown that in the January 8, 1982 massacre, agents of the State executed 32 persons, most of whom were representatives of the community and catechists. It has also been shown that on February 12, 1982, Mr. Casimiro Siana, who served as the village’s auxiliary mayor, was detained by members of the Army; his whereabouts are still unknown. 278. The Commission recalls that the CEH concluded that “the main targets of the selective repression were community leaders; in Rabinal, catechists, health promoters and auxiliary mayors were executed.”366 The CEH wrote that “by making leaders of various sectors of the group the specific targets, their vulnerability increased and the very existence of the group was threatened, since the leaders were 367 in charge of directing and managing affairs and settling disputes within the community.” 279. The Commission recalls that at the time these events occurred, the execution or disappearance of persons in political positions installed terror in others serving in that capacity. 280. The Commission considers that as a consequence of the facts recounted in this report, the collective life of the members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities was torn asunder, to the point that it was left with no authority figure, had been broken apart and practically annihilated. The IACHR notes that the testimony in the record of the case reveals the terror that the survivors experienced; the community way of life had been altered, leaving the survivors with a sense of isolation. The Commission observes that the State policy during the armed conflict contributed to the destruction of the social fabric of the community, which had endured thanks to the intense interaction of its members. The climate of terror did not stop with the massacres, since for years thereafter the area was militarized and the survivors were afraid to mend the social fabric. 281. Therefore, the Commission considers that the Guatemalan State is also responsible for the violation of Article 16 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities. It also finds that the Guatemalan State is responsible for the violation of Mr. Casimiro Siana’s political rights, according to article 23 of the American Convention, who disappeared on February 12, 1982 and has not been seen since. 365 CEH, Memory of Silence, Chapter III, Effects and Consequences of the armed confrontation, paragraphs 441, 443 366 Annex 3. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume III, The Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence, par.3370. 367 Annex 3. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume III, The Human Rights Violations and Acts of Violence, par. 3373 and 459.