11 Based on the foregoing, the Court will refer to specific aspects of the described context that are relevant in this case. A.1 The internal armed conflict and the violence against the Mayan people 28. The CEH noted that during the armed conflict there were multiple “human rights violations and acts of violence attributable to actions of the State […] with especial severity from 1978 to 1984, a period during which 91% of the violations were documented.”25 29. The Court has noted in previous cases that the State applied what it called the “Doctrine of National Security,” employing the idea of an “internal enemy” that initially included the guerilla organizations but was broadened to include other groups and persons.26 Based on that Doctrine, the Guatemalan Army placed the members of the Mayan indigenous populations in the category of “internal enemy” because it believed that they were or could be the support base of the guerillas.27 The Court has noted that, according to the CEH, the Mayan populations were the ethnic group most affected by the human rights violations committed during the internal armed conflict, suffering forced displacement and the destruction of their communities, homes, cattle, harvests and other elements of survival.28 The violence directed against the Mayan people was demonstrated by multiple acts, including massacres.29 30. As indicated (supra para. 27), a peace process began in 1990 that culminated in December 1996 with the signing of the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace. Among the documents signed was the “Agreement on the Implementation, Compliance and Verification Timetable for the Peace Agreements.”30 A.2. Displacement and repatriation of the persons affected by the conflict 31. One of the consequences of the conflict was the displacement of communities and persons, including that outside the State territory. The CEH indicated that the massacres and devastation of villages that occurred between 1981 and 1983 led to the flight en masse of Mayan communities and a considerable number of Ladino families. Some 150,000 persons sought safety in Mexico. About a third settled in camps and received the status of refugee by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter “UNHCR”).31 32. In 1991, the State created the National Commission for the Care of Refugees, Returnees and the Displaced (hereinafter “CEAR”), the object of which was to resolve the situation of the refugees, returnees and the displaced. In July of that year, the Permanent Commissions of the Representatives of Guatemalan Refugees in Mexico (hereinafter “CCPP”) presented a series of conditions for the return to a secure and dignified life. On CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra, Chapter II: The human rights violations and the acts of violence and those responsible, para. 82. 26 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 54 and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 51. 27 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 58. 28 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 58. 29 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 132 and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 54. 30 “Agreement on the Implementation, Compliance and Verification Timetable for the Peace Agreements” of December 29, 1996 (evidence file, annex 5 to the answering brief, fs. 5397 to 5429). 31 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Conclusions and Recommendations, supra, para. 66. 25