Report, while the contrary does not appear in the case file or does not result from judicial 45 certainty. 52. Taking the above into account, the Court will refer to the facts related to the alleged violations in this case, in the following order: (A) the context of the facts of this case; (B) the practice of detention, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the time of the facts; (C) the counter-terrorism laws in force at the time of the facts; (D) the amendments to the counterterrorism laws, and (e) the proven facts concerning Ms. J. A) Context: “Political situation and public order in Peru at the time of the facts” 53. The Court recalls that, in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, it has examined different historical, social and political contexts that permitted situating the acts that were alleged to have violated the American Convention within the framework of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In addition, in some cases the context made it possible to characterize the facts as forming part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations 46 and/or was taken into account in order to determine the international responsibility of the State. 47 54. In this case, the political and historical context at the time of the facts will be established based mainly on the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “the CVR”). The State created the CVR in 2001 in order “to clarify the process, the facts and the responsibilities of the terrorist violence and of the human rights violations that took place from May 1980 to November 2000, attributable to both the terrorist organizations and State agents, and also to propose initiatives designed to reinforce peace and harmony among Peruvians.” The Commission issued its Final Report on August 28, 2003, and this was presented to the different powers of the State which acknowledged its conclusions and recommendations and acted in consequences, adopting policies that reflect the significance accorded to this institutional document. 48 Following the publication of the Final Report, this Court has also used the conclusions of the CVR repeatedly to establish the context of the armed conflict in Peru in different cases. 49 55. The Court has considered that the reports of Truth or Historical Clarification Commissions constitute relevant evidence on other occasions. 50 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in 45 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 138, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 19. 46 Cf., inter alia, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 61 and 62, and 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. 47 Cf., inter alia, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 53 and 63, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 52. 48 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 72.1, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paras. 89 and 91. 49 Cf. Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, supra; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202. 50 Cf., inter alia, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C, No. 101, paras. 131 and 134; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 56; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42; 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. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, footnote, 37, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 298. 18