29 domestic remedies was only asserted by the State in its last brief in 1999, that is, almost 7 years after the start of the proceeding before the Commission. In Report No. 65/01 regarding admissibility and the merits in the instant case, issued pursuant to its Rules of Procedure in force, the Commission, in turn, dismissed the objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in light of Article 46(2)c) of the American Convention, based on the criterion with which this Court concurs. 69. Given the above and in accordance with its case law,31 in the instant case the Court dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the State. VII PROVEN FACTS 70. The Court will now consider the significant facts that it deems proven, which it will present chronologically, and which issue from the study of the actions of the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, as well as the documentary evidence, testimony, and expert opinions submitted in the instant case. A) With respect to the situation of the country 1. during the 1980s and early ‘90s, there was a pattern of forced disappearances and extra-legal 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,32 and this created a climate of impunity;33 31 Godínez Cruz Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, paras. 86, 96 and 97; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, paras. 83, 93 and 94; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paras. 84, 94 and 95. 32 Expert Opinion rendered by Leo Valladares before the Inter-American Court on March 3, 2003. 33 Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of Januay 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paras. 153.b, 165, 167 and 198; Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 147.b), 157 and 188; Statement by Leonel Casco Gutiérrez rendered before the Inter-American Court on March 3, 2003; Expert Opinion of Leo Valladares Lanza rendered before the Inter-American Court on March 3, 2003; Expert Opinion of Héctor Fortín Pavón rendered before the Inter-American Court on March 4, 2003; Report in the daily newspaper Tiempo, “Tres asesinatos en quince días y la inseguridad verdadera” on July 31, 1992; Report in the daily newspaper Tribuna, “Asesinatos Ideológicos son los de Borjas y Cayo Eng Lee” on July 31, 1992; Report in the daily newspaper Prensa “Piden interpelación de jefes militares” on September 18, 1992 in a file at the Secretariat of the Court entitled “Anexos correspondientes al escrito de observaciones de los representantes de la presunta víctima y sus familiares ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos,” Annex 7, pp. 22 to 24; and Sworn statement by Celso Sánchez Domínguez on February 28, 2003, in a file at the Secretariat of the Court entitled “Transcripción de audiencia pública. Excepciones/Fondo/Reparaciones,” pp. 51 to 59; and Comisionado Nacional de los Derechos Humanos “Los hechos hablan por sí mismos. Informe preliminar sobre los desaparecidos en Honduras 1980 1993,” Second Edition: Guaymuras, Tegucigalpa, 2002, in a file at the Secretariat of the Court entitled “Transcripción de audiencia pública. Excepciones/Fondo/Reparaciones,” pp. 255-260, 383-386.