36. In addition, several judicial resolutions issued by Argentine courts have accredited that “from 1976 to 1983 the de facto government imposed a systematic illegal plan of repression” that made it possible for members of the Armed Forces and security forces “to kidnap, torture, assassinate, create clandestine centers of detention and torture, with a veil of impunity and under the direction of those who controlled – by usurpation of power – all the State’s mechanisms of control.”10 2. On the coordination of repression by Argentina and Uruguay in the context of Operation Condor 37. The facts that are the subject matter of the instant case unfolded in the context of what was called “Operation Condor.” In the Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay and subsequently in the Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognized their existence in the following terms11: Most of the Southern Cone’s dictatorial governments assumed power or were in power during the 1970s12, and this permitted the repression of the so-called “subversive elements” at the inter-State level. 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. Thousands of citizens of the Southern Cone sought to escape repression in their country of origin, taking refuge in bordering countries. The dictatorships therefore created a common “defense” strategy. 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.” The activities deployed as part of this Operation were coordinated basically by the military personnel of the countries involved. The Operation systematized and improved clandestine coordination between the “security forces and military personnel and intelligence services” of the region…. The system of codes and communications had to be efficient for “Operation Condor” to function, and so that the lists of “most wanted subversives” could be managed easily by the different States … In other words, the grave acts took place in the context of the flagrant, massive and systematic repression to which the population was subjected on an inter-State scale, because State security agencies were let loose against the people at a transborder level in a coordinated manner by the dictatorial Governments concerned. The Court observes that, during the 1970s, in absolute contradiction to the principal objects and purposes of the organization of the international community established universally in the Charter of the United Nations13 and the regional community in the Charter of the Organization of American States14 and the American Convention itself, 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; in other words, there was a systematic practice of “State terrorism” at an inter-State level. This operation also benefited from the general situation of impunity of the grave human rights violations that existed at the time, promoted and tolerated by the absence of judicial guarantees and the ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions to deal with or contain the systematic human rights violations. Annex XX. Judgment handed down May 19, 2011, in Case No. 2637/04 captioned “Vaello, Orestes et al. re/aggravated illegal deprivation of liberty and aggravated homicide,” National Court for Federal Criminal and Correctional Matters No. 3, Secretariat No. 6, p. 2. Annex to the petitioner’s brief of August 3, 2012. 11 I/A Court HR. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 61.5 to 61.8; and I/A Court HR. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 44. 12 Uruguay, 1973; Chile, 1973; Argentina, 1976; Brazil, 1964; Bolivia, 1971; Paraguay, 1954; and Peru, 1968 and 1975. 13 “We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small … to establish conditions under which justice and respect … can be maintained.” (Preamble) 14 “The American States establish by this Charter the international organization that they have developed to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.” (Article 1) 10