11. In the five cases, the Commission was at the disposal of the parties to reach a friendly settlement, without either party voicing any interest in starting this kind of proceeding. 12. After observing, in the merits stage, that the four cases “focused on similar incidents” and could lead to the disclosure of “an identical pattern of conduct,” in application of Article 29.5 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission ordered the cases to be joined on the basis of the present joint report on the merits and on the admissibility and merits, as appropriate. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 13. The petitioners of the five cases alleged that their next of kin were the victims of forced disappearances in the context of the so-called counterinsurgency efforts during the internal armed conflict that took place in the eighties and nineties in Peru between armed groups and both the police and the armed forces. They specified that, in this context, there were systematic practices of human rights violations, among which forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions, especially of persons who were suspected of belonging or sympathizing with terrorists groups such as the Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru—MRTA). 14. The petitioners of the five cases asserted that the failure to ensure due diligence in the investigations constituted an obstacle to access to justice, so that to date there would be a situation of impunity and an absence of knowledge by the next of kin of the victims about what happened. They alleged that, with the passing of many years, in none of the cases has anything been explained and the whereabouts of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello are unknown. 15. In all the cases, the petitioners asserted that the next of kin reported the disappearances of the victims to the authorities and filed several judiciary and administrative proceedings. The detail of these judicial cases and proceedings for each one of the cases shall be referred to in the examination of the facts by the Commission on the basis of information provided by both parties. In the present section, a summary of the principal arguments drawn up in the merits stage is being provided. 16. In the case of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, the petitioners indicated that the victim had disappeared on August 26, 1992, the date on which he was last seen by a client, when he left his office at five o’clock in the afternoon. The petitioners pointed out that Mr. Terrones Silva was an attorney for the Association of Democratic Lawyers and he was known for defending persons charged with the crime of terrorism. The petitioners asserted that “they made him disappear to obstruct his activities defending persons deprived of liberty for the crime of terrorism.” 17. In the case of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, the petitioners pointed out that she worked as an instructor at the School of Social Sciences of the Universidad Mayor de San Marcos. She was a member of the Teachers Association and was also a member of the Social and Legal Services Commission of the same university, monitoring the situation of students who had been detained and teachers involved in judicial proceedings. The petitioners stated that, on August 19, 1992, Teresa Díaz Aparicio went to the school of social sciences of the university and, since then, her next of kin have not had any information about her whereabouts. They contended that, prior to her disappearance, on March 28, 1989, Díaz Aparicio was arbitrarily detained by agents of the Counter-Terrorism Department (Dirección contra el Terrorismo— DINCOTE), and although the charges were dismissed and she was released, members of the Department had continued to harass her, by conducting a violent illegal search of her home. They concluded that the situation of Professor Aparicio fitted the profile of victims of forced disappearances, in view of the sequence of the events, her status as professor of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos investigated for the crime of terrorism and the forced disappearance policy aimed at eliminating alleged insurgents or sympathizers and keeping the incidents unpunished.