7 34. Between 1980 and 1991, El Salvador was submerged in an armed conflict that left a 7 sorry toll of thousands of civilian and noncombatant victims . After long years of violence, the peace negotiations conducted under United Nations auspices culminated on January 16, 1992 with signature of a peace accord between the government and the FMLN in Chapultepec Castle, Mexico City. During the course of the negotiations, which extended over three years, it was agreed to create a Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (the “Truth Commission”), whose mandate was to investigate “serious acts of violence that have occurred since 1980 and whose impact on society urgently demands that the public 8 should know the truth.” 35. From the onset of the conflict in 1980 the IACHR followed the human rights situation in El Salvador closely, consistently expressing its concern over the growing number of complaints about 9 extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances . As well, in the context of legal proceedings, the 10 Inter-American Commission and subsequently the Inter-American Court have emphasized the context of the armed conflict, basing many of their conclusions on the United Nations Truth Commission’s report, 11 entitled “From Madness to Hope”, of April 1, 1993. 36. The bulk of the IACHR’s concerns had to do with violations of human rights by various units of the Salvadoran armed forces in the so-called anti-subversion campaign. Thus, in 1983 the Commission expressed its “serious misgivings in regard to the continued climate of violence prevailing in El Salvador, where illegal executions and disappearances of persons have continued. As it pointed out in earlier reports, most of these acts are the work of security forces who are able to act outside the law with impunity, and of paramilitary groups who, in the absence of an effective and appropriate investigation of these crimes, would seem to be acting with the Government’s tacit consent. According to information the Commission has obtained from various reliable sources, more than 2,000 Salvadorans have perished in 12 the period covered by this report.” 37. These concerns were consistent with the findings of the Truth Commission, which in effect divided its study into four periods: 1980-1983; 1983-1987; 1987-1989; and 1989-1991. The first period, within which the facts of the present case occurred, was characterized by the Truth Commission as the period of “the institutionalization of violence”, in which “the fragmentation of any opposition or dissident movement by means of arbitrary arrests, murders and selective and indiscriminate 13 disappearances of leaders became common practice.” 38. The Truth Commission Report describes the period in the following terms: 7 IACHR. Report 37/00. Case 11.481. Monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez. El Salvador. 13 April 2000. Para. 31. Citing. IACHR, Annual Report 1980-1981, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, Doc. 9 rev. 1, 16 October 1981, pp. 111-112; Annual Report 19811982, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.57, Doc. 6 rev. 1, 20 September 1982, pp. 120-122; UN, Report of the Economic and Social Council, “Situation of Human Rights in El Salvador”, A/36/608, 28 October 1981; and “Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in El Salvador”, A/37/611, 22 November 1982. 8 Article IV of the Mexico Accords of April 27, 1991 and article 2 of the Annex to the Mexico Accords of 27 April 1991. 9 For an account of the pronouncements of the Inter-American Commission in its annual reports from 1980 to 1993, see IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in El Salvador, 1994. February 11, 1994. Section 1.1. El Salvador: from conflict to the quest for peace. The position of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights during the armed conflict. 10 IACHR, report 37/00, case 11,481. Monsignor Oscar Ranulfo Romero y Galdámez, April 13, 2000; and Inter-American Court, Serrano Cruz Sisters, judgment of March 1, 2005, series C. no 120. 11 Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, “From Madness to Hope”. In its report 37/00, case 11,481 (op. cit.), para. 41, the IACHR noted the seriousness of the methodology used by the Truth Commission, as well as the guarantee of impartiality and good faith derived from its composition, in which the State itself had a say. Furthermore, according to the agreement by which it was created, the Truth Commission was a national entity. In consideration of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that the results of the Truth Commission’s investigation into this case merits faith, and, as such, shall consider it in relation to the facts alleged and items that have been introduced into evidence in this case. It should be noted that the State has not called into question the conclusions of the Truth Commission. 12 IACHR, Annual Report 1982-1983, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.61, Doc. 22 rev. 1, September 27, 1983, page 11. 13 Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador (op. cit.).