keeping with the purpose, procedures, structure and objective of their mandate, such commissions are able to contribute to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the clarification of the facts, and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities during certain historical periods of a society. 51 Nevertheless, the establishment of a context, based on the report of the CVR does not exempt this Court from assessing the whole body of evidence in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experiences, without having to submit to rules concerning the quantum of evidence. 56. In the instant case, the State is not disputing the conclusions of the Report of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission included in the judgment, but contests their application to this particular case. The Court will refer to this and will take the corresponding decision in the pertinent parts of this Judgment. 57. Taking the foregoing into account, according to the CVR, Peru experienced a conflict between armed groups and members of the police and military forces during the 1980s and up until the end of 2000. 52 58. In 1991 the State created the National Counter-terrorism Directorate (hereinafter “DINCOTE”) as a special unit of the National Police responsible for preventing, denouncing and combating terrorist activities, and treason. Furthermore, the Special Intelligence Group (hereinafter “GEIN”) was established within the DINCOTE and, although it was formally attached to DINCOTE, “it 53 began to operate independently of the regular work of the said Directorate.” 59. In previous cases, this Court has recognized that the said armed conflict intensified and included a systematic practice of human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups, such as the Peruvian Communist Party - Sendero Luminoso (hereinafter “Shining Path”) and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA). These actions were carried out by State agents following the orders of senior military and police officers. 54 60. The Court has also recognized that the suffering that the Shining Path caused to Peruvian society is extensively and well-known. 55 In this regard, the CVR has indicated that “the decision of [Shining Path] to initiate a so-called ‘people’s war’ against the State was the fundamental reason for the onset of the armed conflict in Peru.” Also, according to the CVR, “[t]he ideology and strategy of [Shining Path] gave rise to atrocious acts” and “[t]he terrorist characteristics [of this organization] were evident as of its first actions, including ‘ajusticiamientos,’ that is murder accompanied by 51 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 131 and 134; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 298. 52 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume I, chapter 1.1, Los periodos de la violencia, pp. 54 and 55, available at http://cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/ (hereinafter “Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”). See also, Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 46, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 197.1. 53 The DINCOTE was established on November 8, 1991, and replaced the Counter-terrorism Directorate (DIRCOTE). Cf. Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume II, chapter 1.2, pp. 164, 218, 219, 221, 205 and 206; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 86.2; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 73.3, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 88.3. 54 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 42; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 80.1, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 197.1. See also, Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, volume VI, chapter 1.2, pp. 112 and 117, chapter 1.3, pp. 129 and 179. 55 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008. Series C No. 181, para. 41. 19