methodologies 164—significantly impacting Uruguayans, who as a consequence of the dictatorship established in Uruguay starting in 1973, were in the territory of Argentina. Under these circumstances, the operation of the Automotores Orletti clandestine detention and torture center was critical. The experiences of the alleged victims must be understood in this context. 133. It must first be noted that the operation of September 26, 1976, was carried out within the framework of the counterinsurgency actions that the intelligence and security services of Argentina and Uruguay conducted jointly against the civilian population. Indeed, the Julien Grisonas couple was a target of coordinated repressive actions, as they were considered "subversive elements" given their status as political opponents. 165 134. The established facts regarding Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite show that she was violently detained by State agents during the operation and was later taken to the Automotores Orletti clandestine detention and torture center. Argentine authorities provided no information as to her fate despite a series of requests and actions taken, especially by her mother-in-law, María Angélica Cáceres de Julien. To this day, the whereabouts of the alleged victim are unknown. The Court finds that the verified facts present all three defining elements of forced disappearance. 135. The domestic courts have issued three convictions finding that Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite "was illegally deprived of her liberty" on the day of the operation, "was transferred" to "Automotores Orletti" and, to date, "remains missing.” In two of the rulings, it was also established that in the clandestine center, "like the rest of the people detained there," she suffered "beatings and threats, physical torture, […] lost contact with the outside world, […] received [n]o medical care[,] could not properly attend to […] her physiological needs […] [and] was forced to listen to the screams of other people when they were tortured or when they complained of pain from the injuries caused by torture.” 166 136. Thus, the kidnapping of the alleged victim, carried out directly by State agents, and her subsequent clandestine detention in Automotores Orletti 167 constitute the openly illegal nature Expert witness Francesca Lessa stated that in the framework of Operation Condor, the persons "most persecuted were those of Uruguayan nationality" and that Argentina was the territory "where the repressive coordination acted most extensively." She added that "Argentina and Uruguay were the countries that most used the repressive coordination structures." A declassified intelligence report from the Department of Defense of the United States of America, dated October 1, 1976, indicates that between September 24 and 27, 1976, the Argentine and Uruguayan intelligence services carried out, joint operations against a Uruguayan “terrorist organization” (OPR-33) operating in Buenos Aires. As a result of such operations, the entire infrastructure of the organization in Argentina was “eliminated” (“During the period 24-27 September 1976, members of the Argentine State Secretariat for Information (SIDE), operating with officers of the Uruguayan Millitary Intelligence Service carried out operations against the Uruguayan Terrorist organization, the OPR-33 in Buenos Aires. As a result of this join operation SIDE officials claimed that the entire OPR-33 infrastructure in Argentina has been eliminated”). Cf. Expert report signed by Francesca Lessa (evidence file, volume XII, affidavits, folios 16993 and 17056). See, Statistical tables on victims and acts of State terrorism (evidence file, volume IV, annex 23 to the answering brief, folio 15910). 165 As established, the alleged victims were members of the Partido por la Victoria del Pueblo (supra par. 87), formed in 1975 in Buenos Aires by members of Uruguayan organizations in exile (Organización Popular Revolucionaria 33 Orientales, known as OPR-33; Resistencia Obrero Estudiantil, Frente Estudiantil Revolucionario, and Fuerza Revolucionaria de los Trabajadores). Cf. 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, folio 1096). Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6, in the Judgment of September 17, 2012, cases No. 1351, 1499, 1604, 1584, 1730 and 1772 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 18 to the answering brief, folio 15426) indicated that the alleged victims “were investigated by the former Intelligence Directorate […] and had personal files tagged ‘DS,’ which meant subversive criminal [delincuente subversivo].” 166 Cf. 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, folio 1270); judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on August 9, 2016, case No. 1504, 1951, 2054, and 1976 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 8 to the answering brief, folios 7579 and 7580). 167 In January 1981, when referring to the clandestine detention centers, the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances specifically mentioned Automotores Orletti, indicating that it was “located in Buenos Aires 164 38