16. Furthermore, they said that the State violated the right to property of the members of the estate due to the fact that the Army entered it without a court order. They added that the right to equal protection of the law was violated on account of the flaws in the investigation of the facts, the delay in the proceedings, and the State's abetting of the military personnel who committed the massacre. The petitioners said that the alleged facts constitute discrimination against indigenous people. 17. In addition, the petitioners said that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of the victims and their families. The foregoing was due to the fact that there was a series of irregularities, shortcomings, and omissions in the investigations. The petitioners explained that the investigation was initially assigned to the military criminal jurisdiction, which is not compatible with the American Convention. They added that there was a series of failings in preserving the scene of the crime, gathering evidence, performing autopsies, and taking statements from witnesses, in addition to intimidation of the prosecutor in charge of the case and survivors of the massacre who wished to provide statements, among other factors. 18. The petitioners said that it was not until July 8, 2004, after various remedies had been invoked in the quest for justice, that a judgment was handed down convicting the military personnel responsible for the deeds. They said that that proceeding, which lasted almost nine years, was not conducted within a reasonable time. They added that the irregularities and delays created emotional distress in the victims and their families. 19. Finally, the petitioners argued that, despite the existence of a criminal conviction that was final, they had yet to receive any sort of reparation for the injuries caused. They said that they had brought a civil suit which had not yielded favorable results. They added that the surviving victims—some of whom have disabilities due to the alleged events—have also failed to receive adequate medical and psychological care, which has harmed their health. B. The State 20. The State acknowledged that on October 5, 1995, a group of 25 soldiers under the command of a Guatemalan army second lieutenant entered the Xamán estate, which was inhabited by the “8 de Octubre” community. The state acknowledged that the soldiers discharged their firearms "as a result of which 11 members of the community were killed” ... and several other of its members were wounded. Guatemala provided the following explanation: The Government of the Republic of Guatemala regrets the events that occurred on the estate on October 5, 1995, and assumed institutional responsibility from the outset. The Government of the Republic expresses its solidarity with the victims of the events described and is resolved to provide redress to the families of the fatal victims and to the persons who were wounded. 21. Guatemala said that the aforesaid situation was an isolated incident and that it was not planned in advance. The State argued that immediately after the incident it opened an investigation to clarify the events and punish those responsible. 22. The State said that the soldiers involved were detained while the investigation was initiated in the military criminal jurisdiction. It said that the investigation was transferred to the ordinary criminal jurisdiction a couple of months afterwards. It said that various procedures were carried out to ascertain the responsibility of the persons involved, such as the taking statements from witnesses [and] a visual inspection of the scene. The State said that on July 8, 2004, a judgment was delivered convicting the military personnel responsible for the events, including the person in charge of the patrol. 23. It argued that in view of this situation the case is not admissible because the inter-American system is subsidiary in nature. It explained that it had successfully remedied the situation at the domestic level by allowing the victims and their families to have access to justice. It held that, consequently, the Inter3