58 248. The possibility of ratifying or adhering to the Convention against Torture was opened to the greatest number of States by means of a general clause. What was considered important was to attribute the competence for applying the Convention against Torture to an international organ, whether this was a commission, a committee, an existing tribunal or one that would be created in the future. In the instant case, referred to the Court by the Inter-American Commission, it corresponds to this Court to exercise the said jurisdiction. Guatemala accepted the jurisdiction of this Court on March 9, 1987, and ratified the Convention against Torture on January 29, 1987; this Convention entered into force on February 28, 1987. 249. Furthermore, this Court has already had the opportunity to apply the Convention against Torture and to declare state responsibility in virtue of its violation50. 250. It is clear from the documents, testimonies and expert witness reports in the file, that the Guatemalan administrative and judicial authorities did not adopt any formal decision to initiate a criminal investigation into the alleged perpetration of the crime of torture, neither did they investigate it in the practice, although a great deal of concurring evidence was collected on the cruel treatment and torture of the victims when the homicides were investigated. 251. Article 8 of the Convention against Torture expressly embodies the State’s obligation to proceed de oficio and immediately in cases such as this one, and the Court has declared that “in proceedings on human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to obtain evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation”51. However, the State did not act in accordance with these provisions. 252. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes. XIV OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 253. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES unanimously, 1. to declare that the State violated Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1.1, to the detriment of Henry Giovanni 50. Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 13, para. 136. 51. Gangaram Panday case, supra note 13, para. 49; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 12, para. 141 and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 12, para. 135.