“a rule of customary law which, moreover, is one of the fundamental principles of current international law.”231 164. The Commission has found that the duty to repair violations is one of the components established in Article 1(1)232. In this regard, the Court has held: ... to fully ensure the rights recognized in the Convention, it is not sufficient that the Government undertake an investigation and try to sanction those guilty; rather it is also necessary that all this Government activity culminate in the reparation of the injured party.233 165. The Court has also written that the right of the “victims to have access to justice” has “its treaty-based foundation in the rights to [a fair trial] and judicial protection,”234 which, in turn, give rise to the obligation of states “to provide effective […] judicial remedies ... appropriate to achieve not only the ending of the violation or its threat, but also the reparation of the consequences of the violation.”235 166. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the judgment of July 8, 2004, convicted 14 members of the armed forces, including the soldier in charge of the patrol that took part in the events. For the remaining members of the military patrol, the Commission notes that the State in its communication of June 2005 held that "there are still eleven accused pending arrest and subsequently be subjected to public trial; that is the reason why the investigation still remains open". The Commission also notes that as stated by the MINUGUA and the CEH there was proof of concealment of evidence in the initial investigation, threats to witnesses, and irregularities with some judges in charge of the process. 167. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission observes that in the wake of the conviction, the petitioners did not make any submissions regarding a possible situation of continuing partial impunity. The Commission is also unable to determine, with respect to the reparational justice component, if it would be appropriate to formulate additional recommendations. 168. In addition, the Commission notes that, to date, the State has not put into effect the remaining measures of compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and non-repetition required to meet the standard of comprehensive reparation in this case. 169. Therefore, the Commission concludes that while the State convicted fourteen of the Armed Forces members, it has not made comprehensive reparation to the surviving victims and the next of kin of the deceased victims. Taking this situation into account, the IACHR will formulate its recommendations. VI. CONCLUSIONS 170. Based on the factual and legal considerations set out above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Guatemala is responsible for violation of rights recognized at Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, 24, and 25(1) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with the obligations enshrined in 231 I/A Court H.R., Caso Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations, Judgment of September 10, 1993, Series C No. 15, par. 43; and El Amparo Case v. Venezuela, Reparations, Judgment of September 14, 1996, Series C No. 28, par. 14. 59. 232 IACHR, Case 12.519, Report No. 23/11, Merits, Leopoldo García Lucero and family, Chile, March 23, 2011, para. 73. 233 I/A Court H.R. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case v. Colombia. Merits, Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, par. 234 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, par. 182. 235 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, par. 182. 36