Pacoxom massacre, the remains of 143 people were located, of which only three were identified: Demetria Osorio Lajuj, Marta Julia Chen Osorio and Margarita Chen Uscap; although the latter was identified “tentatively” (supra para. 102). 219. From this it can be concluded that the exhumations that have been performed were carried out based on requests and complaints filed by surviving victims of the massacres in the instant case, and that the initiative taken by the State to search for and identify victims has been minimal, even though the facts in question are well-known and documented in Guatemala, as previously noted in this Judgment (supra para. 195). In this regard, during the public hearing, expert witness Rosalina Tuyuc stated that “since the exhumations in the clandestine cemeteries began, most of them have been at the request of the victims, not the State, because the State has never made it a priority or provided support for these exhumations […].”I 220. Based on the above, the Court finds that although some exhumations of remains presumably belonging to members of the Río Negro community have been performed, the State has not continued those exhumations or the investigations that would permit the identification of all the remains. In the Court’s opinion, this continues to increase the uncertainty of the next of kin as regards the whereabouts of the victims, which affects their right to know what happened to the victims. Thus, 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) thereof (infra para. 237). B.5. Failure to investigate other facts 221. Owing to the scale and nature of the acts that occurred during the five massacres in this case, added to the context in which they were committed, this Court has already established that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and eventually punish those responsible corresponds, ex officio, to the competent authorities. In this regard, the facts that occurred during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala are neither new nor recent. To the contrary, they have been widely addressed and documented at the domestic level. The five massacres alleged in this case have even been the subject of specific analysis by the Historical Clarification Commission. 222. In this regard, the Court finds it pertinent to indicate that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for human rights violations does not derive solely from the American Convention. Under certain circumstances and depending on the nature of the facts, this obligation also derives from other relevant inter-American instruments that establish an obligation for States Parties to investigate conduct that is prohibited by those treaties. These instruments include the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (“Convention of Belém do Pará.”) This Court has thus established that States have “the obligation to guarantee the right of access to justice […] in keeping with the specific obligations imposed by the specialized Conventions […] concerning the prevention and punishment of torture and violence against women. [T]hose provisions […] stipulate and complement State obligations with regard to compliance with the rights established in the American Convention,” and “the international body of law on the protection of personal integrity.”302 302 Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, paras. 276, 377 and 379, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 137. 79