20 were remitted to the Supreme Court on January 13.105 On September 23, 2005, the Supreme Court “declared the appeals in cassation out of order” and confirmed the convictions.106 66. As to the members of the patrol other than the 14 convicted soldiers, Guatemala informed that, as of March 9, 2018, 11 are “fugitives from justice”107 and have not been tried. There is no information as to whether this situation has changed. VII. MERITS 67. The Court must analyze whether Guatemala is responsible for violating different rights guaranteed in the Convention with respect to the events that occurred on October 5, 1995 at the Xamán finca and the subsequent actions. After a military patrol entered the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community, 11 persons were fatally shot by the soldiers and another 29 were wounded. Investigations into the incident were opened and resulted in the conviction of 14 soldiers. Another 11 soldiers are fugitives from justice, with warrants for their arrest. 68. Before examining the merits of the case, the Court finds it necessary to underscore that, on the day following the incident, the then President of Guatemala recognized the “institutional responsibility” and that, subsequently, the domestic judicial authorities determined what had happened and handed down convictions. 69. The Court welcomes these aspects, but notes that the State, however, has not recognized its international responsibility. In addition, Guatemala, despite expressly admitting that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, maintained that the case has “been justly elucidated domestically” at the public hearing and, therefore, “the case should not be before the Court.” The Court notes that Guatemala informed that the judicial authorities had convicted 14 persons and that another 11 are fugitives from justice (supra, para. 66 and infra para. 76). 70. Under the principle of complementarity, the Court may assess “whether the State’s response was adequate to remedy the consequences of the alleged violation.”108 The Court has indicated that “the States are not internationally responsible when they have recognized the commission of an unlawful international act, the violation has ceased and the consequences of the measure or of the situation has been repaired.”109 Cf. Report of the State of June 7, 2005, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, annex 30 to the Merits Report, fs. 1427 to 1430). According to what the State informed the Commission, all the recourses were admitted except one, for which there was an appeal of “revocation.” This resulted in a suspension of the “hearing” that had been set for April 28, 2005. On May 9, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of revocation and on the 16th set a hearing for July 5. 106 Cf. Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber. Judgment of September 23, 2005 (evidence file, annex 34 to the Merits Report, fs. 1447 to 1480). 107 The Commission indicated, in paragraph 98 of the Merits Report, that on June 7, 2005 the State had presented to the Commission similar information, pointing out “that there are still 11 accused whose arrest and subsequent prosecution in public oral proceedings remain pending, for which reason the investigation is still open.” 108 Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 100. 109 Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. Similarly, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra, para. 171; Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. 105