B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 29. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided during the public hearing18 and by affidavit,19 insofar as these are in keeping with the purpose defined by the order that required them and the subject of this case. VI FACTS 30. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts considered proven in this case based on the body of evidence admitted, the factual framework established by the Report on the Merits, and the State’s recognition of international responsibility. Facts submitted by the parties to explain or clarify this factual framework will also be included.20 The facts are presented below in the following order: a) The context of racial discrimination, police violence, and the use of racial profiling; b) The arrest of Mr. José Delfín Acosta Martínez; c) The arrest and death of Mr. José Delfín Acosta Martínez; d) Investigation proceedings into the death of Mr. José Delfín Acosta Martínez and, e) intimidation and threats against family members and a witness. A. Context 31. The State recognized that the case of José Delfín Acosta Martínez was not an isolated event, but rather "paradigmatic of the persecution and stigmatization of the persons of African descent in our country" and that it is "an emblematic case of police violence during the 90s, characterized in our country by police brutality and enforcement of the so-called 'police edicts.'”21 The facts of the case thus took place in a context of both racial discrimination and police violence against the Afro-descendant population in Argentina at the time of the facts, a context that exists to this day. A.1. Context of racial discrimination 32. At the public hearing, the State recognized the context of racial discrimination in Argentina, referring to "the existence of patterns of practices of institutional violence heavy with racist and discriminatory prejudices." This context persists to this day, as indicated by the State itself in its oral acknowledgment, where it stated that "discrimination in our country continues to be a serious problem, and recognizing this is the first step to adopting effective measures to address it." 33. This context of discrimination is rooted in how Argentine society views the Afrodescendant population. In his expert opinion rendered before the Court, anthropologist During the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of alleged victim Ángel Acosta Martínez and witness Andrés Alberto Fresco, who took part via video conference, both proposed by the representatives. The expert opinion of Mr. Juan Pablo Gomara, put forward by the Commission, was also obtained. 18 The Court received the statements made before a notary public (affidavit) of Blanca Rosa Martínez, Verónica Andrea Brotzman, Lucía Dominga Molina, Mary Sandra Chagas Techera, Néstor Diego Martínez Gutiérrez, and Fernando Ramírez Abella, as well as the expert opinions of Alejandro Frigerio and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez González, put forward by the representatives. 19 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 33. 20 21 Final arguments of the State of June 18, 2020 (merits file, folios 541 and 542). 11