investigation taking those elements into account. 109. In sum, all the foregoing has contributed to the current impunity of this case, in which there has been no effort to prosecute and, above all, punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the events, all to the detriment of the victims’ right of access to justice and that everything necessary be done to know the truth of what occurred. b.2. Obstacles arising during the proceedings resulting from the massacre 110. The Court notes that, in this case, among the few procedures conducted to determine the identity of those probably responsible for the massacre are various requests for information made by the Public Prosecution Service to the Ministry of Defense. However, the Court notes that the Ministry of Defense has maintained a negative and obstructive position, based on a policy of “State secrets,” by insisting that the requested information is confidential under Guatemalan law. The body of evidence reveals that the Ministry of Defense not only rejected the prosecutor’s request for information on several occasions, but also filed several appeals against the judicial ruling that ordered it to hand over certain information, arguing that this was confidential and referred to military matters classified as “secret.”188 These appeals were denied and the Ministry of Defense finally provided information indicating, first, that there were no records of the military detachments assigned to the zone at the time of the events and, then, producing before the San Benito Criminal Court in charge of the case, a certified document on the location of Petén detachments in 1982 and a certified document on the record of the officers occupying the posts of “Commander, Second and Third Commander S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4 and S-5 of Military Zone No. 23 in March, April and May 1982 “contained in General Directives on Officers, classified as secret.”189 On January 23, 2008, the San Benito Criminal Court decided not to incorporate the record of the hearing into the proceedings (the purpose of which had been that the Ministry of Defense exhibit the required information classified as secret),190 considering that it did not contain elements relevant to the investigation.191 111. The Court recalls that state authorities are obliged to collaborate in the collection of evidence in order to accomplish the objectives of an investigation, and to refrain from taking steps that obstruct the course of the investigation process. 192 Also, in case of human rights violations, state authorities may not shield themselves behind mechanisms such as State secrets or the confidentiality of information, or on grounds of public interest or national security, to fail to provide the information required by the administrative or judicial authorities responsible for the ongoing investigation or proceedings.193 However, that is what happened in the instant case in which, far from collaborating with the investigation, the Ministry of Defense was characterized by actions designed to delay and obstruct the obtaining of relevant evidence for the investigation, thus contributing to the current See, among others, appeal for reconsideration of the January 26, 2007, ruling of April 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 225 and ff.); Appeal contesting the ruling of January 26, 2007 (evidence file, folios 235 and ff.); Appeal for reconsideration of the ruling, of April 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 245 and ff.), and Appeal for reconsideration of the ruling, of April 20, 2007 (evidence file, folios 265 and ff). 188 Cf. Ministry of Defense, Communication No. 6992 of October 2, 2007 (evidence file folio 294); Cf. Ministry of Defense, Communication No. 7001 of October 2, 2007 (evidence file folios 863 and ff.). 189 190 Cf. Record of procedure of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, folio 327). Cf. Ruling of the San Benito Criminal Trial Court for criminal matters and crimes against the environment, Petén, of January 23, 2008 (evidence file, folio 336). 191 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 112, and Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 212. 192 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 10, para. 180, and Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 186. 193 35