11 and a social rite that helps to accept that this person is no longer there. On the tenth anniversary of her brother’s disappearance, her father said “I do not think that your brother will return,” and then she felt that she had permission to leave that illusion behind, something that she had to do to be able to continue living. The witness stated that “it is very cruel, very unjust, perverse, that it is oneself, one who loves the missing person, and who awaits him, who has to kill him.” Impunity continues in this case and in thousands of cases in Guatemala; this is very frustrating, as it means that the grief does not cease. She believes that there must be a change, a punishment, to help bear the grief more easily. Impunity in Guatemala has allowed the criminals to sit in Congress and in the State. She believes that it is an “upside down world” where the victims are guilty and the criminals walk around unmolested. In her country there is no sense of justice. She believes it necessary for society to develop justice. She and her family constantly feel in danger. In August 1982 she stopped studying and working because she no longer felt safe. After the murder of her sister María Eugenia’s husband and after suffering very strong persecution, on March 26, 1984 she left Guatemala and went to Mexico, where she attained refugee status. The family tried to reunify but was unable to do so. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave her 80 dollars for her upkeep and that of their 11 month old baby. She could not get a job, so she decided to make and sell tamales. In Mexico she suffered a very painful process of uprooting. She had never thought to leave Guatemala, and even now every day outside Guatemala is a burden. The witness stated that when she was in Mexico there were some refugee camps along the border between Mexico and Guatemala, and that the Guatemalan Army would enter Mexican territory. This entailed danger both for the refugees and for the Mexican towns, and it gave rise to a hostile atmosphere and to detention of many Guatemalans by the Mexican authorities. On June 3, 1984 she and her sister Emma Guadalupe were detained because the Mexican authorities arrested a friend who had a list that included their particulars. They took their identity documents, forcing them to remain in that country as “illegals,” although they were “refugees,” because Mexico had not ratified the Convention on refugees. She came to Costa Rica in 1985 by her own means. The only income she received during those first years was from the sale of the Guatemalan food that she cooked. Her second son was born, and in 1987 she got a job, despite the fact that her status was “illegal.” In 1991 there was an amnesty for all “illegals” and refugees in Costa Rica, and since her younger son was born in this country, she was able to obtain permanent residence. She was unemployed from 1981 to 1987. She worked “illegally” in Costa Rica from 1987 to 1991, and since 1991 she has had stable employment. The decision of the Inter-American Court is the family’s only possibility of obtaining justice. It is an opportunity for Marco Antonio’s case to transcend toward the overall issue of missing children in Guatemala, and also to transcend with respect to the situation of children who are living in situations