75. In the context of the Peace Accords, signed by the Guatemalan Government and the Unit Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (hereinafter “URNG”) 68 in an effort to reach a negotiated settlement to the conflict, on March 29, 1994, the “Global Agreement on Human Rights” was signed. In this agreement, the parties recognized “the importance of national institutions and entities for the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as the advisability of strengthening and consolidating” these bodies- They also “agree[d] that all actions that may affect the guarantees of individuals or organizations working to promote and protect human rights, are condemnable.” The State made a commitment to adopt “special measures of protection” in favor of individuals or organizations working in the field of human rights. Similarly, [it promised to] “investigate promptly and thoroughly any complaints submitted, related to acts or threats that could affect them,” and reiterated its “commitment to effectively guarantee and protect the work of individuals and organizations that defend human rights.” 69 76. However, in subsequent years, many acts of harassment and aggression against human rights defenders continued, as confirmed by numerous reports from different sources: a) In 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reported that while attacks against human rights defenders had declined substantially in the period prior to the signing of the Peace Accords, these attacks had begun to increase again in the year after the signing of the treaty, and had continued to rise steadily since then. 70 In 2003, the Commission found “a progressive deterioration in the situation of human rights activists in Guatemala, [... and] a significant increase in attacks, which directly or indirectly, impede or obstruct the work of human rights defenders.” The main targets of those attacks were, on the one hand, those who investigated human rights violations committed during the armed conflict (including the victims themselves, witnesses, lawyers, human rights activists and forensic experts), and on the other, those who promoted economic, social and cultural rights and the rights of indigenous populations and ecologists. 71 The acts of intimidation included telephone calls, surveillance and tailing or spying, and the most frequent methods used were “threats in writing, by telephone or electronic means, or through third parties”, as well as “hindering the efforts of defenders” and “intimidation […] through attacks on the defender’s life and physical integrity.” According to the Commission, “there [was] a clear link between the impunity prevailing in the country and the defenders’ situation of vulnerability.” As to the perpetrators, there was a general consensus - recognized even by the Government - that the increase in attacks was associated with the existence and operation of illegal groups and clandestine security organizations, with connections to organized crime and State agents and agencies, particularly with the military intelligence services. 72 In 2004, the Commission reported that the number of such acts had increased in the previous years and formed part of a “pattern of intimidation toward human rights defenders,” aimed at “preventing the effective action of the Judiciary in cases of human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.” 73 68 According to the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) of Guatemala, “[t]he Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo (PGT), Fuerzas Armadas Rebeldes (FAR), Organización del Pueblo en Armas (ORPA) and Ejército Guerrillero de los Pobres (EGP), participated in the unification process which culminated with the creation of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) on February 7, 1982, [however] each organization continued to maintain its own identity. […]”. Cf. CEH, Guatemala, Memory of Silence, Chapter 2, pages 235 and 298 (File of attachments to pleadings and motions brief, pages 3214 and 3277). After the conflict, the URNG became a political party. Cf. Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Report on the General Elections 2003, Municipality of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa. Available at: http://216.230.138.139/elections2003/SantaLuciaCotz.pdf and Statement of December 5, 2010 of the then municipal Mayor (attached to submission brief, page 794). 69 Cf. Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights, March 29, 1994 (File of attachments to pleadings and motions brief, pages 2429 to 2436). 70 Cf. IACHR, Fifth Report on Human Rights situation in Guatemala, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 21 rev. April 6, 2001, Chapter VI, para. 26. Available at: http://www.IACHR.org/countryrep/guatemala01sp/indice.htm. 71 Cf. IACHR. Justice and Social Inclusion: The Challenges of Democracy in Guatemala. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118, Doc. 5, rev. 1, December 29, 2003, paras. 173, 176 and 178. Available at: http://www.IACHR.org/countryrep/Guatemala2003sp/capitulo3.htm. 72 Cf. IACHR. Justice and Social Inclusion: The Challenges of Democracy in Guatemala. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.118, Doc. 5, rev. 1, December 29, 2003, paras. 182 to 184 and 186. Available at: http://www.IACHR.org/countryrep/Guatemala2003sp/capitulo3.htm. 73 Cf. IACHR. Annual Report. 2004. OAS/Ser.L/V/II.122. Doc. 5 rev. 1, February 23, 2005. Chapter V, Title III, para. 55. Available at: http://www.IACHR.oas.org/annualrep/2004sp/cap.5a.htm. 22