26 action of the ordinary jurisdiction, where the sentences were imposed. Therefore, given the particularities of the case, the Court does not consider that there was an infringement that was prejudicial to the alleged victims of the guarantee of the right to appear before a “judge or competent court,” in the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention.136 B.3. Investigation of the intellectual authors and the “chain of command” 85. Regarding the investigation of the alleged intellectual authors and the chain of command, the Court recalls that the proceedings should have ensured that “there were no omissions in gathering evidence or in the development of logical lines of investigation.”137 This is logical when the circumstances of the case present “significant hypotheses” on the facts and on the responsible parties.138 That does not occur in this case. The representative did not explain why there was a probability that the massacre had been planned or that the perpetrators (material or intellectual) were other than the members of the military patrol. It should be noted that 25 adults of this group, which included a minor, were prosecuted. Therefore, it is not appropriate to determine that Guatemala was responsible for failing to follow the logical lines of the investigation. B.4. Reduction of the sentences and the release of the convicted 86. With respect to the sentences, 139 it should be noted that the Court has stated that sentences must be proportional to the seriousness of the violation of human rights involved in a crime and that its determination is not the task of the Court, but rather that of the domestic authorities.140 The representative points out that, on July 8, 2015, the Supreme Court decided to reduce the sentences by 10 years, thereby limiting the deprivation of liberty to 30 years. However, the representative did not present arguments or information that would allow the Court to find harm regarding the proportionality of the sentence. 87. Moreover, the representative claims that at least two persons have been released for “good conduct” and that the others might be released during 2018 or 2019, invoking the same reason. The claims of the representative on the released or could be released persons are not precise and are confusing (supra footnote 115). In addition, it has not presented sufficient arguments to explain why those releases could result in a harm to rights set out in the Convention. Therefore, the Court does not have elements to examine this aspect of the case. It should be emphasized that the circumstances of this case are different than others heard by the Court in which the issue of jurisdiction was resolved in favor of the military jurisdiction where the proceedings had remained for various years. In the Quispialaya Vilcapoma case, the Court determined that “the decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court to bar the ordinary courts from investigating and prosecuting the crimes of the […} case, plus the prolonged time between 2002 and 2007 during which the case was in the military jurisdictions, infringed the right to an appropriate judge” (Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015. Series C No. 308, para. 152). Circumstances like those have an impact on the right to judicial guarantees, which was not verified in this case because of its particularities. 137 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 158 and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 89. 138 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 96 and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 89. 139 The facts show that, on July 8, 2004, 14 soldiers were sentenced to 40 years in prison for the deaths and the injuries caused and that, on September 23, 2005, the convictions were confirmed (supra para. 64). 140 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 108 and Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 462. 136