30 implied violations of rights of persons belonging to the Mayan people.156 It also alleged that, in this specific case, the State had a special obligation to guarantee the security of those persons who returned under the commitments assumed by Guatemala. It found, therefore, that the incident was an expression of “racial discrimination” and, thus, a violation of Article 24 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 102. The representative alleged, in accord with the Commission,157 the violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity, in addition to the violation of the rights of the child.158 It also claimed that the right to equal protection before the law was infringed due to the failure to comply with the agreements signed regarding the return of refugees. 103. The State maintained that it was not responsible for violating the right to life nor the right to personal integrity. It considered that it was not responsible because it complied with the obligation to guarantee those rights by means of an investigation.159 It also pointed out that it had not denied information nor “access to justice” to the persons involved. It also argued that those persons had the opportunity to file civil actions “but did not do so opportunely,” which cannot be attributable to the State. In addition, it considered that its actions were not discriminatory, neither in fact nor in law. It also argued that most of those soldiers were q'eqchís, in other words, they belonged to the same indigenous Mayan ethnic group that was prevalent in the Xamán finca Community. B. Considerations of the Court 104. The Court will consider the alleged violations to life and to personal integrity jointly since they both originate in the same incident: the massacre perpetuated by members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala on October 5, 1995, to the detriment of the 11 persons who were killed and the 29 persons who were wounded. 105. Together with those rights, the Court will examine the alleged violations of the rights of the child, since one girl and two boys were among the 11 killed, as well as the claims of discrimination. With respect to the latter, no specific domestic norm, the application or The Commission pointed out in the public hearing of February 9, 2018 that “it was necessary to take into account the historical context of discrimination for ethnical reasons that the indigenous peoples of Guatemala have suffered, especially the context of the armed conflict during which ethnic discrimination was the basis of the State policy of identifying and exterminating the Mayan people. The Commission considered that the behavior of the troops in the Community on the day of the incident was an expression of the ethnic discrimination exercised against the Mayan people during the armed conflict in Guatemala.” 157 In addition to the persons indicated by the Commission, the representative mentioned Eulalia Antonio, the mother of Manuela Mateo Antonio as a victim, who is considered an alleged victim in the case (supra para. 17). Unlike the Commission, the representative did not present arguments on behalf of Daniela Catarina Chic López, mother of Carlos Fernando Chop Chic, although it did provide documentation that accredited the link to the case (cf. Death certificate of Carlos Fernando Chop Chic (evidence file, annex 1 to the brief with pleadings and motions, fs. 5021 and 5022)). Finally, although the GAM referred to Santiago Coc in its brief with pleadings and motions, it indicated that it was not able to contact his family members and could not make requests on his behalf (infra, footnote 227). The State did not comment on the matter. Bearing this in mind, as well as the State’s acceptance of the incident underlying the arguments on the violations of human rights in the case (supra para. 26), the collective nature of which has already been indicated (supra para. 17), the Court considers it proper to examine, with respect to those persons, the different alleged violations and the eventual measures of reparation, based on the Commission’s comments. 158 It underscored that the failure to observe the agreements of return signed by Guatemala (supra para. 33), regarding the non-intervention of military groups, infringed the rights of the indigenous populations and, therefore, resulted in the alleged violations. In addition, it emphasized that the survivors and the family members of the deceased persons feared those who, as soon as the involved soldiers are released, could attempt to avenge themselves. 159 The State referred to what the Court had held in the Perozo et al. case concerning the obligation to guarantee: “the investigation of a certain substantive right can be the means of ensuring or protecting that right” (Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 298). 156