asserted that “it did not claim to deny the terrible events perpetrated during the civilmilitary dictatorship, nor the suffering of the victims and their families” and that “the facts in this case have not been refuted.” The Court will determine the facts, taking into consideration the lack of controversy on them and the particularities that are found the body of evidence. 29. There follow the established facts, in this order: (a) context; (b) regarding the alleged victims; (c) case background and facts, and (d) reparations obtained domestically. A. Context A.1. Regarding the serious violations of human rights committed during the dictatorship and later acts that brought them to light 30. According to the Merits Report, the events that gave rise to this case occurred during the civil-military dictatorship in Uruguay, which began on June 27, 1973, after a coup d’état, and continued until February 28, 1985. The Court has already dealt with this situation in the Gelman v. Uruguay case.15 The Court held in that case that there were serious violations of human rights committed by State agents. There follows an account of the Court’s holding in that case plus some additional elements. 31. The Court stated that the events occurred “in the context of the systematic practice of arbitrary detention, torture, executions and enforced disappearances perpetrated by the intelligence and security forces of the Uruguayan dictatorship, in the setting of the national security doctrine and of Operation Condor.”16 The Commission pointed out in its 1978 Report on Uruguay that beginning in 1973 it had received information “charging the Uruguayan authorities with the responsibility for the violent death, as a result from physical abuse, of a considerable number of men and women who were being held under detention.”17 The Court also established the implementation under the dictatorship of “daily forms of surveillance and control of society” and, more specifically, “forms of repression against leftist political organizations.” During that period, there were also numerous cases of abductions of children, forced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial executions.18 32. On April 9, 1985, the Chamber of Representatives unanimously voted to establish a Parliamentary Investigative Commission 19 to clarify the situation of disappeared persons and on the facts that motivated that situation.20 That Commission first identified Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paras. 44 to 63. 15 16 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 44. 17 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay. OEA/Ser.L/V/11.43 doc.19 corr.1, January 31, 1978, para. 3. 18 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, paras. 58, 59 and 60. Article 120 of the Constitution of Uruguay states that “The Chambers may appoint parliamentary investigative commissions or to provide information for the purposes of legislation.” 19 Minutes of Sessions of the Chamber of Representatives. XLII ª Legislature. First regular session. 13th meeting. Number 1805, Book 617, p. 63. Cf. Minutes of Sessions of the Chamber of Representatives. XLII ª Legislature. First regular session. 2nd meeting. Number 1794, Book 616. February 20, 1985, p. 80 (evidence file, annex XXXVII to the answering brief, fs. 4074 to 5198). 20 11