33. Regarding these events, in its observations of February 2011, the Commission added that, on September 24, 2010, when an exhumation, previously coordinated with the community leaders, was being conducted in the village of Xenaxicul in the municipality of Aguacatán, department of Huehuetenango, “the local Mayor incited the population to prevent [the] work [of the beneficiaries] from continuing.” In the report filed before the authorities based on this incident, the beneficiaries stated that this official “told them that if they did not pay the [village] or if they did not leave, the [local population] would attack them with axes, [and] he also threatened the next of kin of the victims [whose exhumation FAFG was there to conduct].” Consequently, the members of the FAFG who had gone to carry out the exhumation “decided to abandon their appraisal until the Public Prosecution Service opened an investigation against the Mayor.”19 In this regard, they indicated that they were awaiting the possibility of “returning with the appropriate measures of security” but, to date, they had received no information in this regard, or any “request to continue with the work that remained pending.” In addition, they reported that, on December 9, 2010, Juana Elizabeth Cedillo Ceto and Petrona Marcelina Chel de López, two employees of the FAFG branch office in the municipality of Nebaj, department of El Quiché, received “an abusive voice message that included death threats” on the mobile telephone provided by the FAFG “for the use of this office.” They clarified that the said branch office of the Foundation “ha[d] no security measure provided by the State,” and indicated that the incident had been reported to the Public Prosecution Service. 34. Regarding the events of April 2010, the Commission expressed its “alarm” over the theft of Omar Bertoni Girón’s computer and the threat against the FAFG Executive Director, emphasizing that this threat “relates not only to the incident against Mr. Bertoni Girón, and the information obtained from his computer, but also extends the threat to the Executive Director, all his family, and the members of the FAFG.” The Commission considered that “the threat indicates that the actions that have been required of the Guatemalan State have not been implemented effectively.” Also, at the public hearing, the Commission asked that the State present recent information on the investigation into these incidents. 35. The Court appreciates the information provided by the State regarding the actions taken to investigate the alleged new acts of harassment suffered by the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, it observes that, even though the State argued that the theft of the computer with sensitive FAFG material was the result of a common crime in the sector where it occurred, this does not explain the message that the FAFG Director allegedly received later, in which reference was made to the theft and the beneficiaries were threatened. In this regard, it takes note of the State’s observation that this message apparently followed the pattern of messages that the State argued could be attributed to the beneficiary Gianni Peccerelli. However, the Court notes that, as both the State and the representatives have reported, this attribution of responsibility had already been rejected by a domestic court which found that there were no grounds for it (infra considering paragraphs 37 and 38). Moreover, the Court notes the recent events reported by the representatives in February 2011 (supra considering paragraph 33) regarding the alleged threats that had hindered the Foundation’s work and obstructed progress in the judicial investigations. Bearing in mind that Guatemala has not had the opportunity to comment on 19 With their observations of February 2011, the representatives provided, inter alia, a copy of the complaint filed before the Ombudsman’s Office based on this incident, in which three members of the FAFG, two of them beneficiaries of these measures reported that, on September 24, 2010, they had met in the home of one of the next of kin of the deceased victims, who “told them that the next of kin who had accompanied them [the] previous day had been threatened with imprisonment and beaten because they had told the [FAFG employees] where the deceased could be found.” In addition, they stated that, when the social anthropologist was on the way to the cemetery, “he was intercepted by four individuals who, in a threatening manner, told him to be careful with the deceased, [and that] it was then that the deputy Mayor appeared […] inebriated [and] made the [death] threats” described above. In addition, they indicated that the “interpreter and family member of victims [who accompanied them], was also threatened by several people from the Xenaxicul community, […] including the deputy Mayor.” 13