21 71. However, it is appropriate here to examine the arguments on violations to the rights recognized in the Convention. In the first place, it should be noted that Guatemala has expressed that it ‘institutionally recognizes” what occurred, but it clarified that that does not imply a recognition of “international responsibility.”110 Moreover, it is not apparent that there has been reparation and, although the State did convict 14 persons, the representative and the Commission have questioned whether those acts have been diligent and complete and they have denied that the alleged victims have obtained reparations. Nevertheless, Guatemala maintained that its diligent investigation exempts it from responsibility regarding the different rights that the representative and the Commission argued had been violated. In order to analyze the position of the parties, the Court must consider the arguments on the merits of the case. 72. In similar cases, the Court has examined the observance of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection after doing so with respect to the other rights allegedly infringed.111 However, in this case, the Court notes that Guatemala, as has been indicated, has claimed that because of the actions of the judicial authorities the case should be considered already “elucidated” domestically and, furthermore, that it should not be considered by the Court. In addition to the State’s arguments (which will be subsequently reviewed), Guatemala claims that the judicial activities that resulted in the conviction of 14 persons exempt the State not only of responsibility to investigate the facts of the case, but also of the alleged violations of the rights to life and to personal integrity. 73. Thus, the Court must assess the judicial activity of this case and then verify whether there are reasons that would allow it to find violations of rights recognized by the Convention. In view of the arguments of the State, there may be a close relationship between the manner in which the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection have been observed and the determination that must be made regarding other rights. The Court will, thus, analyze the arguments in the following order: (1) rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection; (2) rights to life, to personal integrity and the rights of the child, in relation to the obligation to respect the rights without discrimination; (3) right to personal integrity of the next of kin of the deceased and injured persons; (4) right to private property, and (5) right to equality before the law. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 140 and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016, Series C No. 330, para. 96. 110 The State explained that “institutional responsibility is the articulation and specification of all acts, mechanisms, norms and/or policies that have the purpose of avoiding harm to any human being, without any distinction, by institutions responsible for overseeing the common good and the full development of the individual,” and that “international responsibility consists in the State not complying with an obligation established in an international norm for acts or omissions that impair the rights of the persons whom it should protect, a responsibility that is guaranteed in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments to which Guatemala has adhered.” 111 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134 and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra.