49. As was mentioned above, in this case there was a friendly settlement procedure, in the context of which the State implemented a number of reparation measures. In this section, the IACHR places on record the measures that have been effectively implemented, to the extent that such information is relevant for the purposes of formulating recommendations to the State and monitoring their implementation. However, the Commission wishes to clarify that this has nothing to do with approving the friendly settlement agreement, since the petitioners expressed their desire not to continue with that procedure and requested the adoption of this report on the merits. 50. Having said that, the IACHR observes that following the signing of the friendly settlement agreement and a series of exchanges between the parties, including meetings before the IACHR, on July 26, 2012, Guatemala reported that 252 family groups had received the agreed compensation and it detailed the information and documentation pending in connection with six specific cases. Specifically, those cases concerned: Matías Alonzo López, Virgilio Quixán Jimón, Cristóbal de Jesús Jocop Pineda, Jesús Galdames Sanabria, Luis Francisco Valiente, and Rogelio Regalado Guerra. The total amount of the payments made was mentioned in the section on the position of the State. Later, in a communication of January 21, 2013, the State said that it had provided compensation to 251 family groups and that seven of them had not been accredited. This last information was reiterated in the State's brief of September 3, 2014. 51. As for other reparation measures included in the friendly settlement agreement, in their most recent briefs in that regard, both parties mentioned that the Guatemalan State had complied with holding an act of public recognition of responsibility; the broadcast of a radio program; the reimbursement of procedural expenses to FAMDEGUA; and the construction of a monument where the skeletons of the victims were deposited and on which a plaque was put up to the victims' memory. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS 52. On account of the fact that this case involves multiple victims of violations of different sorts, the Commission's legal analysis addresses the facts in the following order: (i) The alleged extrajudicial executions and violence that occurred during the massacre and the persons whose whereabouts are unknown since that event; (ii) The alleged forced disappearances; (iii) The ensuing violations connected with these facts; and (iv) The investigations opened at the domestic level. The applicable provisions of the relevant inter-American instruments are referred to in each section. A. The alleged extrajudicial executions and violence that occurred during the massacre and the persons whose whereabouts are unknown since that event. Right to life, 138 right to humane treatment,139 and rights of the child140 53. With respect to the right to life, it is important to highlight the consistent case law of the Court in the sense that it “is a fundamental human right, and the exercise of this right is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. If it is not respected, all rights lack meaning.” 141 Observance of Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, “not only presupposes that no person may be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to the obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction.”142 Indeed, it is incumbent upon States to: Article 4 (1) of the American Convention provides: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 139 The pertinent portions of Article 5 (1) and (2) of the American Convention provide: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture of to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.” 140 Article 19 of the American Convention provides: “Article 19. Rights of the Child. Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 141 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C. No. 63 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Street Children Judgment”), par. 144. 142 See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C. No. 166 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment”), par. 80. I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C. No. 150 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Montero Aranguren Judgment”), par. 65. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, 138 15