Agua Fría massacres, it is evident that the corresponding investigations have focused on determining the responsibility of the former. Thus, the only soldier investigated, nine years after his arrest had been requested, has still not been brought to justice. In this regard, during the public hearing, expert witness Hermann Mörth stated that “in [the] five [Río Negro] cases, there has been no additional investigation of the soldiers who were responsible.” In the instant case, the victims have expressed their frustration about this. Thus, for example, Bruna Pérez Osorio, a surviving victim, stated that “[a]t the present time, about eight patrollers have been convicted, but in reality there are more. What about the senior commanders who […] have not been arrested? They were the ones who killed us.”296 In addition, during the public hearing, Carlos Chen Osorio, also a surviving victim, stated that “the judgment will always be delivered against the peasants, in their cloth hats and sandals, […] but never against the masterminds […].” In testimony given by affidavit, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy stated that she hoped that “justice [would be done] because [they want] the truth to be known about everything that happened; […] how the patrollers and the soldiers were the ones who came to kill the people; they also know who gave them the order to do so; […] only when everyone realizes that justice can be done, will acts like this never happen again […].”297 206. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument (infra para. 237). B.2.3. Failure of the military authorities to cooperate by providing information that would assist in the capture of other responsible parties 207. The Inter-American Commission indicated that, in the instant case, the military authorities have allegedly failed to cooperate by providing information about the military garrisons and the civil self-defense patrols in the area, as well as about the former colonel accused of having given the order to perpetrate the massacres. In this regard, the case file reveals that within the framework of the investigations into the massacres, the Public Prosecution Service has asked various military authorities for information on the said former colonel, and on the composition of the military garrison and the civil self-defense patrols operating in the area. As already mentioned in this Judgment (supra paras. 106 and 107) on several occasions, the First Instance Criminal Court of Baja Verapaz had asked military entities for information related to the events. Evidence of these facts is on record in the case file. 208. Nevertheless, the Commission also argued a series of facts to the effect that, on October 5, 2005, the prosecutor in charge of the case had asked the Ministry of Defense for information on the “general orders of the Guatemalan Army for the different officers holding high-ranking and mid-level posts throughout national territory from 1981 to 1983.” On November 16, 2005, the Ministry of Defense responded that the individuals regarding whom the information was requested must be identified, because, owing to the volume of orders and the number of officers, the prosecution must assume the cost of copying these orders. In addition, the Inter-American Commission indicated that, on December 14, 2005, the Public Prosecution Service had asked the Ministry of Defense to provide information on the individuals who served as commanders of the Honor Guard Military Brigade from 1980 to 1984. On March 8, 2006, the Ministry of Defense responded that the Army’s archives were 296 Testimony provided by affidavit by Bruna Pérez Osorio on June 15, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 994). 297 Testimony provided by affidavit by María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy on June 15, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folios 1009 and 1010). 76