34 A. The investigation conducted by the staff of this institution, the interviews conducted, statements of witnesses, statements by victims’ family members, and reports in the media or published by other institutions have established that members of the Guatemalan army, military commissioners and members of the Volunteer Civil Defense Committees or civil self-defense patrols were materially involved in the commission of the acts. B. That (…) the conduct of the agents who perpetrated these acts (…) presupposes a willingness to commit them and to cover up the identity of those responsible. C. That the manner of death was violent and involved the use of weapons that not only ensured that the agent perpetrators would be able to carry the violence off without cost to themselves but also gave them the upper hand. D. That (…) the victims were buried with no form of identification; (…) clandestine gravesites were created. The idea was to conceal the identity of the perpetrators, the evidence, and the victims, thereby endeavoring to ensure that those responsible would not face justice. (…) F. That the gravity of the events and the circumstances under which they occurred preclude any examination of isolated episodes and acts committed by groups operating independently of the 215 authorities charged with providing security to the public. 145. The Human Rights Ombudsman stressed that “from the number of victims and the manner in which the events occurred, it can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the material authors of these acts had orders to carry them out, orders that plainly came from Army officers or superiors.” He added that “it is entirely reasonable to assume that the planning, ordering and execution of these heinous deeds were willful acts on the part of the material and intellectual authors alike.” He further maintained that “these human rights violations not only caused the deaths of individuals in those communities, but also caused serious physical and mental injuries and property damage to those who survived.” He argued that “the human rights violations, which were intentionally committed, inflicted upon the communities and their inhabitants, both individually and collectively, living conditions that transformed the survivors into internally displaced persons, with terrible consequences both for the survivors as persons and for their rights.”216 146. The Human Rights Ombudsman concluded that these events “constitute archetypal crimes against humanity.” Among the responsible parties, he also named “the governments of the Republic at the time of the events and the ministers of national defense and the interior under those governments.” He recommended to the Attorney General of the Nation, “a severe, swift and continuing investigation and prosecution of these very grave events, until those responsible are punished.”217 214 Annex 25. Memorandum from the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated September 2, 1996. Annex 15 of the petitioners’ communication of December 13, 2007. 215 Annex 25. Memorandum from the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated September 2, 1996. Annex 15 to the petitioners’ communication of December 13, 2007. 216 Annex 25. Memorandum from the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated September 2, 1996. Annex 15 to the petitioners’ communication of December 13, 2007. 217 Annex 25. Memorandum from the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated September 2, 1996. Annex 15 to the petitioners’ communication of December 13, 2007.