this regard, the Court considers that it is not necessary to incorporate this testimonial statement, because it is not essential for deciding this case, because the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, and the available body of evidence provide sufficient information to decide the merits of the case. 43 VII FACTS 48. Given the importance of establishing the facts that generated State responsibility in this case in order to preserve the historical memory and to prevent the recurrence of similar events and also as a form of reparation to the victims, in this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case, based on the facts submitted to its consideration by the Commission and the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, taking into account the motions and arguments brief of the representatives and the body of evidence. 49. The Court recalls that, based on its case law, the principle of non-retroactivity and the optional clause on the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction do not mean that an event that occurred before the said acceptance must be excluded from any consideration when such an event may be relevant for determining the facts and the human rights violations that do fall within its temporal competence. In addition, the Court notes that, under Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly controverted as accepted. The Court also recalls that, in order to decide the different cases submitted to its consideration, it has needed to take into account the context and other facts that exceed its jurisdiction, such as events that are relevant in order to understand the circumstances in which the alleged violations submitted to its consideration took place. 44 50. The Court will now refer to the facts relating to the violations alleged in this case, namely: (A) the context in which the events of this case took place; (B) the appearance of the Diario Militar and the Historical Archive of the National Police; (C) the facts relating to the forced disappearances of the Edgar Fernando García, as well as the circumstances surrounding this; (D) the search for the victim and the investigations into the events, and (E) the facts relating to the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo. A) General context 51. From 1962 to 1996 an internal armed conflict took place in Guatemala that resulted in considerable human, material, institutional and moral costs. The Historical Clarification Commission (infra para. 55; hereinafter also “the CEH”) estimated that “more than two hundred thousand people were killed or disappeared in the internal armed conflict.” During this conflict, the State applied the so-called “National Security Doctrine,” based on which it used the concept of “internal enemy,” which initially referred to the guerrilla organizations, but gradually expanded to include “all those who identified themselves with communist 43 The Court has made a similar ruling in the following cases: Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 38, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 34. 44 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 53 and 63, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 55. 17