49 Chingo and La Cruz hills, where they were raped. This assertion is based on statements taken by the Tutela Legal, which included some soldiers who declared that they had “raped many young women before killing them” in the village of El Mozote. 257. This information is consistent with the manner in which the massacre in that village was conducted: in contrast to what happened in the other, nearby places, the women were separated from the men and were killed in several groups, beginning with the youngest, according to the statement of Rufina Amaya, who was present in one of the groups but was able to escape. 258. The Commission notes the difficulties in obtaining proof in a case such as this. Those difficulties are compounded by the fact that the rapes were committed in the only village from which there was only one survivor. Moreover, approximately 12 years elapsed after the massacres before an investigation was opened and when that finally occurred no proper methods were employed to exhume the remains of the victims and conduct forensic examinations into these issues. In light of the situation, the Commission considers that the statements taken by the Tutela Legal constitute proof, which the State has not contradicted through serious and diligent investigations, that an indeterminate group of women were raped in the village of El Mozote on December 11, 1981, prior to their extrajudicial execution. 259. Having analyzed the allegations of the parties, and the questions of law involved, the Commission concludes that the State of El Salvador is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in articles 5.1, 5.2 and 11.2 of the American Convention, taken in concordance with the obligations of article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of an indeterminate group of women who were in the village of El Mozote at the time of the massacre. 260. As discussed subsequently in this report, it is the duty of the State to complete the required investigations and to identify the victims of rape. E. The right to property (article 21 of the Convention in relation to article 1.1 thereof) for the survivors and relatives of the victims 261. Article 21.1 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 262. Article 1.1 of the American Convention declares: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 263. The goods to which the right to property apply have been defined by the Inter-American Court as “those material objects that may be appropriated, and also any right that may form part of a person’s patrimony; this concept includes all movable and immovable property, corporal and incorporeal 282 elements, and any other intangible object of any value.” 264. The Commission observes that, by their nature, counterinsurgency operations such as those that resulted in the massacres examined in this report, were qualified as “scorched earth” and had the purpose of “cutting the guerrillas’ lifeline”. Those operations sought not only to kill people but also to destroy their homes and eliminate all possible means of livelihood, so that the places would remain abandoned or depopulated and the few survivors would be unable to continue living there. These 282 I-A Court, Ivcher Bronstein vs. Peru. Judgment of 6 February 2001. Series C No. 74, Para. 122; and Masacres de Ituango vs. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006. Series C No. 148, Para. 174