established in the Court’s Rules; that is, together with the State’s answering brief and that this case does not involve any of the exceptions in the Rules for the admission of extemporaneous evidence. Therefore, those documents will not be admitted. B. Admissibility of testimonial and expert evidence 35. The Court deems it relevant to admit the notarized statements 20 and those made in the public hearing,21 to the extent that they are in conformity with the purpose that was defined by the President’s order to receive them and that stated the purpose of the present case. VII FACTS 36. This case is related to the violations of the conventional rights of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán and his next of kin, as a result of his forced disappearance in the early morning of November 10, 1990. The disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán occurred in the context of forced disappearances committed by State agents against persons identified as subversive, particularly as members of the “Alfaro Vive Carajo” and “Montoneras Patria Libre” groups.22 More than thirty years after the events, the investigations into this case do not report any significant advance. 37. The Court will now proceed to detail some of the facts of the case, in light of the State’s recognition of international responsibility and of the evidence contained in the record. To do so, it shall make reference (A) to the context of forced disappearances in Ecuador and (B) the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán and (C) the internal procedures. A. Context of forced disappearances in Ecuador 38. From 1984 to 1988, Raúl Febres Cordero was President of Ecuador. His government was marked by repression against the so-called “subversive groups,” especially “Alfaro Vive Carajo” and “Montoneras Patria Libre,” as they were considered comprised of persons who were dangerous to the security of the community and of the country.” 23 In this context, the the Truth and Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State; (iii) Report Nº FGEDCVDH-2018-130 of September 24, 2018, signed by Ángel Cujilema, Interim Director of the Office of the Truth and Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State; (iv) Communication Nº FGE-GCVDH2019-001916-O of April 9, 2019, signed by Diego Fabián Bolaños Reyes, Interim Director of the Office of the Truth and Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State; (v) Rules of Procedure for the Signing of Compensatory Agreements with Documented Victims in the Report of the Truth Commission, of August 13, 2019; Office of the Ombudsman, Follow-up Report, of January 22, 2020, transmitted by communication No.ADHN-2020-0009-O, of February 6, 2020, signed by Carmen Marianela Maldonado López, Deputy of the Office of Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. The Court received the notarized statements of the alleged victims Iván Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán and Luis Alberto Garzón Guzmán and of the expert Juan Pablo Albán, as well as the testimony of Clara Elena Merino Serrano. 20 The Court received, at the public hearing, the statements of the alleged victim María Clorinda Guzmán Bedón and the expert Federico Andreu Guzmán. 21 22 “Alfaro Vive Carajo” and “Montoneras Patria Libre” were groups of guerillas that operated in Ecuador. Cf. Executive Summary. Sin Verdad no hay Justicia (No Justice without Truth). Final Report of the Truth Commission of Ecuador, 2010 (evidence file, folios 2507 to 2508). In addition to the Report of the Truth Commission, other sources supported the assertion that, during the Government of Febres Cordero, there was a policy of repression. The Report of January 20, 1989 of the Multi-Party Commission of the Ecuadorian Congress, charged with studying requests for amnesty and the disappearance of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, affirmed that “the Government of León Febres Cordero implemented a repressive policy that manifested itself in repeated human rights violations.” It also claimed that the statements gathered “prove the involvement of the Armed Forces and the Police in a repressive policy that violates the guarantees of citizens established in the Constitution and the Law. The principal 23 10