64 events that occurred after their legal classification and entry into force in 1996. As for the crime of forced disappearance, it reiterated that it is permanent, but not continuous (supra paras. 15 and 128). Thus, it indicated that “although it is not possible to prosecute acts that occurred within the framework of the internal armed conflict […] the State of Guatemala accepts [the] responsibility and obligation to investigate the historical truth and to make reparations or compensate the victims at the domestic level.” Finally, it stated that the conflict was not a form of discrimination against the Maya people, but rather a conflict that originated to overthrow the government; therefore, it asked the Court to declare that it did not violate the right to equality. 209. As already noted, at the public hearing the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 51, 55 and 56). B. Considerations of the Court 210. The State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. However, as has been pointed out, the State has not specified the facts that led to those violations or against whom they were committed. Given that this case involves a number of serious human rights violations that occurred in the context of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala, the Court will now refer to its case law regarding the duty to investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for such violations when they are committed within a context such as that of the instant case, and will describe the factors that constitute a failure by the State to comply with those obligations. 211. The Court recalls that, by virtue of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, States must provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 218 212. Likewise, this Court has pointed out that in a democratic society, the truth must be known about serious human rights violations. This is a reasonable expectation that the State must satisfy, 219 on the one hand, through the obligation to investigate human rights violations ex officio and, on the other, by disclosing the results of the criminal and investigative proceedings. 220 This requires the State to procedurally determine the patterns of joint action and all the persons who in various ways participated in said violations and their corresponding responsibilities, and to make reparations to the victims in the case. 221 For this reason, on previous occasions the Court has considered that the authorities in charge of the investigations have the duty to ensure that in the course of the investigations the systematic patterns that allowed the commission of serious human rights violations, such as those that occurred in the instant case, are assessed. 222 In order to ensure its effectiveness, the investigation must take into account the complexity of the facts and the structures within which those involved operated, particularly in contexts of massive and systematic or generalized attacks against some sector of the population, 223 so as to avoid omissions in the collection of evidence and in the follow-up of logical lines of investigation. 224 218 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311. para. 71. 219 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 220 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 119, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 221 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 195, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 222 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 156, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 223 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 94 to 96 and 98 to 99, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 42. 224 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 177.