5 13. That the Court has held that, “instead of exonerating the State from its obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, this fact [that Guatemala was experiencing a domestic armed conflict] obliged it to act in accordance with such obligations.”7 14. That the Tribunal has noted that, in Guatemala, impunity has become a decisive factor that imbues the systematic patterns that made the commission of serious human rights violations during the armed conflict possible.8 Specifically, it noted that “the Guatemalan system for the administration of justice resulted ineffective in guaranteeing compliance of the law and protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin in almost the totality of the violations committed against human rights during that period of time” and that “[t]hus, the lack of investigation into this type of facts constituted a determining factor in the systematic practice of violations against human rights.”9 15. That the Court has held that “even today, the courts in Guatemala have been incapable of effectively investigating, prosecuting, trying, and punishing those responsible for human rights violations” and that “[t]he courts have often subordinated their actions to the executive branch or to military influence, ‘applying legal provisions or rules that are contrary to due process or not applying those they should have.’”10 16. That the tribunal notes that its decisions concerning both the merits of the cases brought before it and compliance with said judgments11 prove that Guatemala has a serious problem regarding the impunity that prevails in said country, specifically in connection with the systematic human rights violations that took place during the armed conflict. 17. That, during the proceedings concerning the merits of the instant case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the human rights violations against Marco Antonio Molina-Theissen and his family. The Court noted that such acknowledgment entailed “a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the effectiveness of the principles that underlie the American Convention on Human Rights.”12 18. That it is the Court’s view that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility must translate into the prompt and effective compliance with the orders issued by this Tribunal as measures of reparation. The State must act consistently with its acknowledgment, and it is imperative that – given such acknowledgement, the Court’s Judgment and, most particularly, the duties to respect and guarantee human rights undertaken by the State by way of a sovereign decision upon ratifying the American Convention – it do not fall back into new violations or maintain situations that are incompatible with the Convention, as is the case with impunity. On the contrary, the Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 134(8) and 134(10); Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 58(1); Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, para. 40(6); Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42(1), and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C. No. 190, para. 48. 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 207. 8 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 70. 9 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 51. 10 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 134(13). 11 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 6, paras. 172 and 174; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 70; Case Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2009, Considering clause No. 20; Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering clauses Nos. 15 and 16; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering clause No. 37. 12 Cf. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 46.