81 the participation of the latter in the facts was denounced and that the accusers provided the names of the alleged perpetrators and the places where they could be found. Thus, the Court considers that the investigation, arrest, prosecution, trial and eventual punishment of those responsible for the violations committed against members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal, including the perpetrators and the masterminds, has not been conducted effectively, with due diligence and within a reasonable time, so as to fully and exhaustively examine the multiplicity of serious human rights violations caused or alleged, within the specific context in which they occurred. Furthermore, the investigations have not been aimed at locating all the disappeared victims, nor have all the remains found in the various exhumations been properly and opportunely identified, even with the procedural initiative of the victims’ next of kin. All this has violated, in particular, the right to know the truth of the next of kin of the disappeared victims. 264. This Court has indicated that “Guatemala has a serious problem with respect to the impunity that prevails in the country, specifically in relation to the systematic violations of human rights that occurred during the armed conflict.” 324 The Court considers that the State’s actions in the investigation of the facts of this case demonstrate a clear desire on the part of the authorities to ensure that these remain in the most absolute impunity, which results in an aggravated responsibility for the failure to comply with its duty to investigate serious human rights violations. 265. Taking into account the above considerations, as well as the body of evidence in the instant case and the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility (supra paras. 55 to 58), this Court finds that Guatemala 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, as well as for the failure to comply with the obligations established in Article I. b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Article 7.b of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and in application of the principle iura novit curia, also in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the victims in the instant case or their next of kin, in their respective circumstances. The names of such persons are listed in Annex I of this judgment, which includes, in application of the principle of good faith and procedural loyalty, the names that appear in the “Single Annex” to the Merits Report of the Commission and in the “General List of Victims” provided by the representatives on June 2, 2016, as verified. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 266. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 325 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 326 324 12 Guatemalan Cases. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2015, considering paragraph 125. 325 Article 63(1) of the Convention states: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 326 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 210.