motions brief, and evidence contained in the case file, 21 in the following order: (a) the context of serious human rights violations in the framework of the Honduran national security doctrine; (b) the death of Herminio Deras García; (c) facts about the Herminio Deras García family, and (d) the criminal proceedings. Facts that predated Honduras’ recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction will be given as background information. A. Context of serious human rights violations under the national security doctrine in Honduras 36. The Court has judged previous cases 22 on the context of serious human rights violations in Honduras in the 1980s, in which the facts of the instant case occurred. It has held that: ...during the 1980s and early ‘90s, there was a pattern of forced disappearances and extralegal executions committed by the military forces in Honduras. These forces had a special, autonomous status, and they acted under a certain doctrine of national security, in light of which they captured “dangerous” persons or those who were “suspicious” of being alleged Honduran subversives, supporters of the Salvadoran guerrillas or of the Sandinistas. Usually these persons were detained at night, interrogated, tortured, and then given a finishing shot and buried in clandestine cemeteries or unauthorized places. The military forces, in turn, controlled the police forces, and the judges felt intimidated to effectively investigate criminal cases where human rights violations by the armed forces were alleged, and this created a climate of impunity. 23 37. Honduras concurred in the public hearing, stating that the facts alleged by the Commission and the representatives in the case at hand had taken place in “the framework of application of the grievous national security doctrine in the 1980s in the Republic of Honduras.” The Honduran Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, CVR) has stated in this regard that many of the victims of national security doctrine enforcement efforts were politicians, labor activists, and teachers, as was the case of Deras García (infra, para. 41). Expert witness Camargo spoke along the same lines concerning: ...the systemic violence experienced in the countries known as the northern triangle of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras) in the 1980s and 1990s, where national security doctrine enforcement by State security forces led to the persecution of social leaders, farm and indigenous leaders, members of trade unions and student associations, active members of center-left, socialist or communist political parties, people suspected of being ‘guerrillas,’ accused as ‘internal enemies of the State,’ who were subject to harassment of themselves and their families, whose privacy was invaded, who were subject to arbitrary detention, torture, displacement, forced disappearance and even extrajudicial execution. 24 38. Expert witness Sosa Iglesias said: [d]etainees in the clandestine prisons were subjected to […] electric shock, withholding of food and water, isolation, blindfolds, hoods, sexual abuse, use of trained dogs for torture, 21 Evidence of the facts held in the case file includes: statements by several victims, expert opinions, copies of portions of the file from the criminal case (judicial case file 7159-02) lodged in response to the death of Herminio Deras García, a copy of the complaint filed by Otilia Flores Ortiz on February 4, 1983, a report by Amnesty International on “human rights violations in the 1980s” in Honduras, and press reports from the time of the facts. 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 147 and 148; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 153; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 112, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 70.1. 23 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 70.1. 24 Expert opinion by Luz Adriana Camargo Garzón, May 2, 2022 (evidence file, folio 2600).