- 14 41. In addition, in accordance with the Inter-American Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather must be placed in the context of all the evidence in the proceedings, insofar as they can provide further information on the presumed violations and the consequences.40 VI PROVEN FACTS 42. The case refers to the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the four presumed victims, three judges and one justice, as a result of which they were dismissed, and three of them were ultimately excluded from the Judiciary. These events occurred in the context of an acute democratic crisis, classified as a coup d’état by the General Assembly and the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS”) and by the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereinafter “United Nations”) (infra para. 52), and as a constitutional succession by the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) (infra para. 63). Consequently, the Court will set out: (A) the facts relating to the context in which the events of this case occurred; (B) the normative framework under which the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims were held, and (C) the facts relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims. A. Context 43. In the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has examined diverse historical, social and political contexts that have allowed it to situate the facts alleged to have violated the American Convention within the framework of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In some cases, the context makes it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations,41 as a practice applied and tolerated by the State,42 or as part of massive and systematic or generalized attacks on one sector of the population.43 The Court has also taken the context into account to establish the international responsibility of the State,44 to understand and assess the evidence,45 to evaluate the relevance of certain measures of reparation, and to determine the standards established with regard to the obligation to investigate such cases.46 Accordingly, since it is relevant to understanding the facts and the alleged violations of the Convention in this case, the Court will now present the facts relating to: (1) the coup d’état in 40 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No 33, para. 43, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 16. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 126, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, paras. 67 and 68. 42 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 126, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, paras. 67, 68 and 195. 43 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 94 to 96, 98 and 99, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 67. 44 Cf. 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, paras. 195 and 196. 45 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 129 to 146, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, paras. 67 and 68. 46 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, paras. 244 to 249 and 319 to 321, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 327.