committed by members of the State’s security forces during the counterinsurgency effort in Peru. In this regard, it considered that “an appropriate assessment of a context of human rights violations in a country at a specific historic moment cannot be based merely on the quantitative aspect, but must also include the qualitative aspect.” This is why the modus operandi identified by the Truth Commission is of fundamental importance for the analysis of this case. The Commission recalled that this modus operandi included selectivity and “the use of [different forms] of concealment, including the preparation of records of release.” In addition, it considered that the low numbers cited by the State were not “surprising,” because the Truth Commission had indicated that, at the time of the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera there had been a decrease in the number of disappearances; however, at the same time, it had verified “the highest degree of selectivity and their systematic nature.” Furthermore, the existence of a counterinsurgency operation in the area at that time; the fact that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was not brought before any authority to decide his situation even though he had allegedly been found in flagrante in possession of a weapon; the fact that there were police attestations identifying him as a possible subversive; that he was referred to as “comrade” in the Commander’s report; the way in which he was transferred citing “manuals” for the treatment of “subversives”; the testimony of his wife and his sister indicating that when they went to ask for him they were given to understand that he was considered a subversive; taken as a whole, these are factors that would allow it to be inferred that the element of selectivity was present in the detention of Mr. Osorio Rivera. 104. The Commission identified two instances in which the element of concealment was verified: (1) when the members of Mr. Osorio Rivera’s family went repeatedly to ask for information on his situation, on the reasons for the detention and, especially, for his release and the authorities did not allow them to have any access to specific information on his situation, his presentation before a competent authority, or his fate, and (2) the position assumed by the Peruvian State before the Inter-American Court by indicating that Mr. Osorio Rivera was released on May 1, 1991. Regarding this supposed release, the Commission emphasized that the State had not brought up this hypothesis as part of its defense during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission. According to the Commission, the State had not denied the enforced disappearance, but had merely indicated that the investigations were underway. According to the Commission, in this case, the principle of estoppel was fully applicable to the position of the Peruvian State, which had assumed the accused’s hypothesis before the Inter-American Court for the first time. In this regard, the Commission considered that this hypothesis should be kept outside the factual framework. The Commission also considered that the hypothesis that Mr. Osorio Rivera’s arrest was made in flagrante delicto because he was carrying a weapon, or that it was a purely accidental, circumstantial or casual arrest, “not only is not substantiated in the case file, but is contrary to the available evidence and to the actions of the soldiers who detained Jeremías Osorio Rivera.” Thus, according to the Inter-American Commission, the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Osorio Rivera constituted the first act initiating the victim’s enforced disappearance. Regarding the supposed record of release, the Commission considered that this lacked any probative value based on a series of reasons that it described. In addition, the Commission observed that, regardless of the alleged release, the fact is that there has been no news of Mr. Osorio Rivera since April 30, 1991, when his brother saw him as he was being taken away. The Commission considered that, in light of the rules of sound judicial discretion, the absence of information for 22 years about the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Osorio Rivera since his supposed release raises serious doubts about the State’s hypothesis. 105. The representatives argued that an enforced disappearance had occurred in this case based on: (1) the context at the time of the facts; (2) the circumstances and conditions of the victim’s detention; (3) the irregularities in the supposed release, and (4) the failure to establish the whereabouts of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Thus, after analyzing the general context of violence in the country during the year in which the events of this case took place, and based on the reports of the 39