facts that were alleged to have violated the American Convention in the context of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. Also, in some case the context enabled the Court to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations 258 and/or conditioned the determination of the international responsibility of the State. 259 146. Regarding the use of a context that includes the existence of a systematic pattern of human rights violations to prove the existence of a specific human rights violation in the particular case that is being examined, it is pertinent to recall the first judgment on merits delivered by this Court in which it established the enforced disappearance of Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez based on the prevailing context in Honduras at the time of the facts. In particular, in that case, the Court concluded: “the following facts have been proved in this proceeding: (1) a practice of disappearance carried out or tolerated by Honduran officials existed between 1981 and 1984; (2) Manfredo Velásquez disappeared at the hands of, or with the acquiescence of those officials within the framework of that practice, and (3) the Government of Honduras failed to guarantee the human rights affected by that practice.” 260 147. On other occasions, when determining the context, the facts, and the international responsibility of the States, 261 the Court has decided to grant special probative value to the reports of the Truth or Historical Clarifications Commissions as relevant evidence. Thus, the Court has indicated that, based on the object, procedure, structure and purpose of their mandate, these commissions can contribute to the construction and preservations of the historical memory, the elucidation of the facts, and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities in specific historical periods of a society. 262 148. The Court has already indicated the context in which the facts of this case occurred, based on the report of the CVR; in other words, the historical, social and political factors that existed in Peru at the time of the facts. Thus, it has emphasized the existence of a systematic and, in some case, generalized practice of human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups, carried out by State agents (supra paras. 53 to 58). The Court has also referred repeatedly to the conclusions of the CVR, following the publication of its final report, to establish the context of the armed conflict in Peru in several cases. 263 258 Cf., inter alia, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 61 and 62; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 102 and 103, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paras. 51 to 55 and 94. 259 Cf., inter alia, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 63; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 131, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 123. 260 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 148. 261 Cf., inter alia, Case of Myrna Mack v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 131 and 134; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 82; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, footnote 37, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 74. 262 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 131 and 134, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico supra, para. 74. 263 Cf. Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 61; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 54; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, supra, para. 72; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 197; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 80; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, paras. 53 to 56; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 48 and 49. 54