3 Guatemala is obligated to investigate the events and identify those responsible, including a thorough and efficient investigation to determine if there were any violations to International Humanitarian Law, with the purpose of identifying those responsible. There are three arguments that support this assertion. a) The interpretation and application of the American Convention do not exclude those of general international law; on the contrary they require them. The preamble to the American Convention expressly refers to the principles reaffirmed and developed in international instruments, “both of a universal and regional nature” (para. 3). It also refers to obligations imposed by international law (Article 27), as well as to “the generally recognized principles of international law” (Article 46(1)(a)). b) The fact that the Inter-American Court lacks jurisdiction to determine violations of specific conventions such as the Geneva Conventions of 1944 or the Convention against Genocide (1948), does not mean that the Court cannot consider acts that these conventions typify as grave violations or genocide, as aggravating circumstances (aspect developed by Judge Antonio Cancado Trindade in his concurring opinion in the Case of the Massacre of Plan de Sanchez.) This argument becomes stronger when these conventions relate to the violation of a right established in this Convention, such as when it deals with a violation to the Right to Life established in Article 4 of the American Convention. In this sense, and, as argued by jurist Cancado Trindade “under the American Convention, the determination of the aggravated international responsibility of the State is perfectly possible…It wouldn’t be the first time that the Inter-American Court identified an aggravated international responsibility (as occurred in the terms of paragraph 51 of the judgment on the case of the Plan de Sanchez Massacre or in its previous Judgment, from 25(1)1.2003, on the case Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala, in which the Court concluded that, of the facts proven, an “aggravated international responsibility by the respondent State” is inferred, para. 139.)” (Concurring opinion of Cancado Trindade Plan de Sanchez Massacre page 9) c) At the time when the events of the instant case occurred, the prohibition established in common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions was already part of the customary international law, and even of the jus cogens domain. Therefore, the State of Guatemala was already forced to comply with this prohibition. 2. Competence and application of the Convention of Belém do Pará: It is highly important that in this case the Convention of Belem do Para was applied. The reasons exposed in the referred judgment were: a) the State had the obligation to investigate all of the events with due diligence, which was pending at the time of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction (March 9, 1987); b) this obligation was later reaffirmed by the State with the ratification of the Convention of Belém do Pará on April 4, 1995, thus the State had to ensure its compliance as of that moment, even when it had not been adopted by the State at the time the events of the case took place; and c) The Convention of Belém do Pará complements the international corpus iuris in terms of the protection of personal integrity. The case of Las Dos Erres is not only paradigmatic in terms of impunity, but also in terms of the methods of war used by the State of Guatemala while carrying out hostilities in an internal armed conflict. The use of rape has been denounced repeatedly as a method of torture, as well as specific violence against women,