4 16. The aggression they suffered destroyed or was intended to destroy the historical link between the old and the new generations that ensured the transmission of the cultural traditions, which are the condition and expression of the identity of the members at both the individual and the collective level. The women and the elders were sacrificed in an effort to restrict the reception and transmission of the culture, which gives identity, continuity and historical transcendence to certain human groups. This very severe violation was carried to extremes when the surviving men were obliged to enlist with their aggressors and act in concert with them, as if they were members of that group, rather than the one that had been abused. 17. I believe that this point has been covered satisfactorily in some points of the judgment on reparations in this case; such as when it is said that “With the death of the women and the older people, oral transmitters of the Maya Achí culture, their knowledge could not be transmitted to the new generations, and, today, this has produced a cultural vacuum. The orphans did not receive the traditional education handed down from their ancestors. In turn, the militarization and repression to which the survivors of the massacre were subjected, particularly the young men, has caused them to lose their faith in the traditions and knowledge of their forefathers" (para. 49(12)). 18. The right to the benefits of culture is established in Article 14 of the Protocol of San Salvador. The Court has not attempted to apply this norm, but has merely established the evident consequences of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the victims of the declared violations of the American Convention, violations that are included in the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, according to the Inter-American Court’s judgment of April 29, 2004, in this case. Clearly, there are connections between the juridical rights preserved directly by the American Convention and those established in the Protocol of San Salvador; to such an extent, that the protection granted by the former instrument contributes to the protection of the rights established in the Protocol. 19. It is pertinent to recall that the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility includes violations of Articles 1(1), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment, specifically the attack on physical, mental and moral integrity, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 16(1) (Freedom of Association), 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to Property, specifically the use and enjoyment of property and prohibition to deprive anyone of this), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). Also, violations of Articles 12(2) and 12(3) (Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion, specifically, harm to freedom of religion and beliefs, and limitation to manifest religion and beliefs), 13(2)(a) and 13(5) (Freedom of Thought and Expression; in this case, respect for rights or reputation, and prohibition of war propaganda and advocacy of hate that constitute incitement to lawless violence on grounds of race, color, religion, language or national origin, inter alia). 20. The deprivations endured by the victims caused them severe physical, mental and moral suffering, as established in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. They also gave rise to the violation of several aspects of the exercise of freedom of conscience and religion, as established in Article 12(2) and 12(3) of the Pact of San José, and also of freedom of thought and expression in relation to the incitement to violence, in accordance with Article 13(2) and 13(5), provisions invoked, inter alia, by the Court in its judgment of April 29, to which I now refer.