A. General considerations 17. The Commission finds it important to recall that the legal precedents of the Inter-American system have been consistent in holding that the criteria used by its bodies for assessing evidence are less rigid than in domestic legal systems, enabling them “to weigh the evidence freely.”3 In this regard, both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) have established that they must “apply a standard of proof which considers the seriousness of the charge and which, notwithstanding what has already been said, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner.” 4 Additionally, the Court has held that it is “legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.”5 18. The Commission also emphasizes that in cases involving allegations of the forced disappearance of persons, it has been the practice of the bodies of the Inter-American system to give special consideration to the nature of this violation, which is intended to erase any physical trace of the crime and which is generally followed by a series of acts and omissions on the part of State officers seeking to cover up the crime by means of various ploys. First, they deny the deprivation of liberty. Next, they resort to disinformation, or the dissemination of false information, regarding the victim’s whereabouts or fate. Finally they conduct ineffective, lax investigations that, far from establishing the truth, perpetuate the ignorance of the victim’s fate.6 19. In the same vein, the Court has held that in cases involving forced disappearance, circumstantial or presumptive evidence is especially important because “this type of repression is characterized by an attempt to suppress all information about the kidnapping or the whereabouts and fate of the victim.”7 The Court has held that it is possible for the disappearance of a specific individual to be proven “by means of indirect and circumstantial evidence, when taken together with their logical inferences, and in the context of the widespread practice of disappearances.”8 However, the use of circumstantial and presumptive evidence in cases involving alleged forced disappearance is not confined to cases in which said disappearance takes place in a particular context,9 but is applicable mainly because of the nature of this serious human rights violation. B. General context of the situation in Chiapas and the actions of paramilitary groups in the area 20. The state of Chiapas is located in southeastern Mexico. In Chiapas, the indigenous population – belonging to 10 different ethnic groups – comprises approximately 30% of a total population of 3 million inhabitants. Until 1994, the state of Chiapas had been mostly governed by the PRI at all political levels. Additionally, its socioeconomic status ranked among the worst in Mexico and it had a long history of agrarian strife.10 Northern Chiapas, where the municipality of Sabanilla is located, just as many other areas with high indigenous populations, has been marked by land disputes with heavy political, ideological and religious IA Court of HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4 (“Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment”), pars. 127 and 128. 4 IACHR. Report No. 25/15. Case No. 10.737. Merits. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and Family. Colombia. July 21, 2015, par. 42; IA Court of HR. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240 (“González Medina and Family Judgment”), par. 132; Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 129. 5 IA Court of HR. Judgment González Medina and family, par. 134; Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 130. 6 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10, 2009, par. 36. 7 IA Court of HR. González Medina and family Judgment, par. 134; Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 134; Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 131. 8 IA Court of HR. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36 (“Blake Judgment”), par. 49. 9 See also, IA Court of HR. Case of Munárriz Escobar et al v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355 (“Munárriz Escobar et al Judgment”), par. 67. 10 IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100, Doc. 7 rev. 1. September 24, 1998, Chapter VII, The Situation of indigenous Peoples and their Rights, The Situation in the State of Chiapas (Report Situation of Human Rights in Mexico 1998), par. 540; Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática y Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas. Anuario Estadístico del Estado de Chiapas 1995. See also: IACHR. Report No. 51/16. Case 11.564. Admissibility and Merits. Gilberto Jiménez Hernández et al (La Grandeza). Mexico. November 30, 2016 (“Gilberto Jiménez Hernández et al Merits”), par. 49. 3 4