63 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 206. The Commission alleged that the facts of the case are part of a situation in which high levels of impunity prevail. It pointed out that more than 32 years have passed since the events took place and 21 years since the complaint was filed; nevertheless, the facts remain in total impunity. It argued that this delay is unreasonable, highlighted various deficiencies and obstacles in the investigation, and argued that Guatemala has not carried out an exhaustive identification of the exhumed remains nor has it adopted measures aimed at locating the whereabouts of the missing persons. It also pointed out that the failure to properly characterize the facts of forced disappearance constitutes an additional element of impunity. On this point, it emphasized that the application of the criminal offense of forced disappearance does not violate the principle of legality in those cases in which the whereabouts of the disappeared person have not been determined once the offense has come into force. Therefore, it concluded that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Article I.b) of the ICFDP, to the detriment of the disappeared persons and the next of kin of the victims listed in the “Single Annex” to the Merits Report. The Commission also considered that the facts of the case fall within the category of genocide and that “confirmation of a pattern of racial discrimination in the form of the stigmatization and persecution of members of the Maya people as sympathizers of the insurgency, required Guatemala to act with special diligence in the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators.” By failing to do so, the Guatemalan courts violated Article 24 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of Chichupac village and neighboring communities. 207. The representatives alleged that in a context of ongoing impunity, multiple complaints have been filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office since 1993. However, none of the criminal proceedings related to the facts have gone beyond the investigative phase, despite the existence of clear lines of investigation that could determine the culprits. They also pointed out that the time that has elapsed is unreasonable. They highlighted various obstacles in the investigation, emphasized the deep pain and anguish that this causes to the victims and concluded that Guatemala violated the victims’ rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. They added that knowledge of the victims' whereabouts is part of the right to know the truth, one to which not only their relatives are entitled, but also the entire Guatemalan population. They further alleged that there are contextual elements that show that the acts committed by State agents were “intended to totally or partially destroy” the ethnic group of the Maya community of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities, and pointed out that the failure to investigate the facts is directly and profoundly related to the current situation of racial discrimination in Guatemala. 208. In its answering brief, the State argued that, in accordance with its capacity, it has made every effort to comply with its obligation to investigate and that the authorities in charge have acted diligently. It reported on the opening of several case files and described the procedures carried out within them, 217 including the identification of 30 victims. Regarding the duty to investigate within a reasonable period of time, Guatemala referred to the complexity of the facts, the “notable inactivity” of the victims in the last decade and “the various” investigative measures carried out. Furthermore, it argued “the legality and appropriateness of the Amnesty enacted” through the National Reconciliation Law (LRN). With regard to the crimes to which the amnesty is not applicable under the LRN, it argued that the crime of genocide could not be applied to the facts of the case, given that the Guatemalan conflict did not originate as an inter-ethnic conflict, and that the crimes of forced disappearance and torture can only be charged with respect to against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: […] b) apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women.” 217 In particular, it affirmed that beginning in 2011, “various events that occurred in that region” were investigated under File MP001-2012-364, allegedly processed by the Unit for Special Cases of the Internal Armed Conflict of the Prosecutor's Office of the Human Rights Section.