36. As regards the state's argument that the case is inadmissible owing to the existence of a final decision in relation to the alleged deeds at the domestic level, the commission recalls that according to the consolidated case law of the organs of the Inter-American system, “ascertaining whether the State violated its international obligations by means of its actions before its judicial organs, can lead to” the Inter-American Commission and Court “examining the particular domestic procedures, eventually including the decisions of the higher courts, so as to establish the compatibility with the American Convention.”4 37. In that regard, the Commission underscores that the purpose of this petition is not a review per se of the proceedings and decisions under domestic law. The purpose is to determine as to whether the alleged acts and omissions of various State authorities engaged the international responsibility of the State of Guatemala. 38. The IACHR finds that, if true, the facts alleged by the petitioners could constitute violations of rights recognized in Articles 4, 5, 8, 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of said instrument. At the same time, the Commission considers that it does not have sufficient elements at its disposal to analyze if the alleged facts could characterize a violation of rights recognized in Articles 11, and 21 of the American Convention. V. ANALYSIS OF MERITS A. Proven Facts 1. Regarding the armed conflict in Guatemala 39. The Inter-American Commission and Court have both pronounced on the consequences of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala that lasted from 1962 to 1996.5 Those organs took into account the findings of the Commission for Historical Clarification (hereinafter, the “CEH”) in its report “Guatemala: Memory of Silence” (Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio), of the Interdiocesan Project for the Recovery of Historical Memory in its report “Never Again” (Nunca Mas), and of information gathered by international and domestic bodies. In that regard, the Commission recaps the following information:6 The armed conflict in Guatemala had an enormous human, material, institutional, and moral cost. During that period it is estimated that more than 200,000 people were victims of arbitrary executions and forced disappearance.7 (…) The counterinsurgency policy in Guatemala was characterized, particularly during the most violent period of the conflict, by military actions designed to exterminate groups and communities through killings of defenseless populations, massacres,8 and scorched-earth 4 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, par. 49. 5 IACHR, Report No. 6/14, Case No. 12.788, Merits, Members of the Village of Chichupac and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal, Guatemala, April 2, 2014. See, also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211. 6 IACHR, Report No. 6/14, Case No. 12.788, Merits, Members of the Village of Chichupac and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal, Guatemala, April 2, 2014, pars. 36-66. 7 The Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) registered 42,275 victims of arbitrary executions and forced disappearance in the course of its documentation efforts. Of these, 23,671 were victims of arbitrary execution and 6,159 were victims of forced disappearance. Annex 1. CEH, Memory of Silence, Volume V, Conclusions and Recommendations, par. 1. 8 Annex 1. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Conclusions and Recommendations, pars. 85-88. Available at: https://hrdag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CEHreport-english.pdf 6