of Justice of the Nation, among other authorities. 57 A.2. The plan for systematic repression during the dictatorship 59. During the period of the military government, a "systematic and widespread plan for repression of the civilian population" was implemented and executed, justified by the "fight against subversion." Although the repressive actions began prior to the coup d'état, it was after the coup that "the forced disappearance of persons was employed as a systematic methodology under a plan designed by the State," 58 establishing a systematic practice of “State terrorism.” 59 60. This plan, characterized by its secrecy, included the following actions, described by Argentine courts of law as "serious human rights violations" and "crimes against humanity”: (a) abducting those suspected of having ties to subversion […]; (b) taking them to places located in military units or controlled by them; (c) interrogating them using torture […]; (d) subjecting them to inhuman living conditions […]; (e) carrying out all these actions in complete secrecy, with the kidnappers hiding their identities, […] keeping the victims incommunicado, denying information to any authority, relative, or close friend on the abduction or the location where they were being held[;] and (f) giving broad leeway to lower-ranking officials to determine the fate of the abducted person, who could be released, placed at the disposal of the National Executive Branch, subjected to military or civil proceedings, or physically eliminated. [...] Likewise, the impunity of the executors was guaranteed by policies of non-interference with their procedures, concealing the truth in response to requests for information, and using State power to convince the public [...] that the complaints made were false […]. 60 A.3. Coordinated repression in the context of “Operation Condor” 61. The context in which the facts of this case occurred is connected with the inter-State coordination aimed at guaranteeing the persecution of those classified as “subversive elements” in the framework of “Operation Condor.” The existence of this operation was recognized by this Court in the cases of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay and Gelman v. Uruguay, as follows: Most of the Southern Cone’s dictatorial governments assumed power or were in power during the 1970s [...]. The ideological basis of all these regimes was the “national security doctrine,” which regarded leftist movements and other groups as “common enemies,” whatever their nationality. [...]This was the context of the so-called “Operation Condor,” a code name given to the alliance of the security forces and intelligence services of the Southern Cone dictatorships in their repression of and fight against individuals designated “subversive elements.” [...] [D]uring the 1970s, the intelligence services of several countries of the Southern Cone of the Americas established a criminal inter-State organization with a complex assemblage, the scope of which is still being revealed today [...]. 61 62. Argentine courts have also recognized the existence of "Operation Condor," having detailed its scope, objectives, and modes of action, with specific reference to what took place domestically starting in 1976 regarding foreigners who tried to escape the political persecution 57 Cf. “Act for the National Reorganization Process,” issued by the Commander Generals of the Argentine Armed Forces on March 24, 1976, document cited in the judgment issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital on December 9, 1985, case No. 13/84. 58 Cf. Nunca Más. Informe de la Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1984, chapter I.B, (supra footnote 37), and “El Nunca Más y los crímenes de la dictadura.” Ministry of Culture, Presidency of the Argentine Nation, Edición Cultura Argentina, pg. 22. 59 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Goiburú et al v. Paraguay, supra par. 66; and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 99. 60 Cf. Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on December 30, 1986, upholding the Judgment of the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital, case No. 13/84 (supra footnote 37). See judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on May 31, 2011, case No. 1627 (evidence file, volume I, annex 2 to the Report on the Merits, folios 924 and 1404). 61 Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra pars. 61(5), 61(6) and 72, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 44. 19