important element. On the other hand, State authorities’ conclusions regarding the facts may be taken into account, but they do not affect the autonomous decision that the Inter-American Court may take based on its own jurisdiction and functions. 148 B.2 Assessment of evidence regarding the involvement of State agents in the disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio 123. From the above arguments, it is clear that the parties and the Commission agree that no direct evidence exists to prove that the State was involved in Pedro Movilla’s disappearance. Furthermore, the question of whether sufficient indirect evidence exists is disputed. The Court will assess whether the elements highlighted by the representatives and the Commission pointing to the State’s responsibility, which the State denies, are sufficient. In conducting its assessment, the Court will take into account, as is explained below (infra paras. 127 and 140), that, although there is no information about Mr. Movilla’s trade union activity at the time of his disappearance, evidence does exist for earlier periods, and his membership of the PCC-ML is not in dispute. These circumstances are important to frame Mr. Movilla’s disappearance within the context of this case, and to assess the differentiated or particular impact that the fact of his disappearance had on his rights, on those of his relatives, and on those of society as a whole. 124. First of all, it should be noted that the Court has established that, at the time of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance, there was a context of political violence, part of an internal armed conflict, which did lead to acts of forced disappearance. The political violence was carried out not only by the State, but also by non-state actors. In other words, it was a complex contextual framework, with acts of violence committed by both the State and non-State actors (supra paras. 67 and 69). 125. In this context, the existence of elements consistent with political violence practiced by the State and indicative of possible State involvement in the events has been alleged in this case. It should be remembered that, as has been established (supra para. 69), State authorities followed the so-called “doctrine of national security” that called for the identification of “the enemy within,” including leftist political militants and trade unionists. 126. However, the State has denied that the political party of which Mr. Movilla was a member (the PCC-ML) was being persecuted in 1993. Nonetheless, the context as established (supra paras. 61 to 64 and 69), shows that the doctrine of national security and the concept of “the enemy within” were implemented during the 1990s, and involved the use of illegal practices. Therefore, the fact that by 1993 the PCC-ML had been legalized does not mean that its members may not have been illegally persecuted. Furthermore, as has been shown (supra para. 67), despite the peace agreement signed with the EPL ⎯a guerrilla group linked to the PCC-ML⎯, several people who had formed part of that group were subjected to human rights violations. 127. There is no doubt that Mr. Movilla was a member of the PCC-ML in 1993, when he disappeared, and that, in previous years, he had been active as a militant and trade unionist. Regardless of how “visible” Mr. Movilla would have been within the framework of the PCC-ML’s activities, and the precise moment when he was active as a trade unionist, in 1993 the XIII In this regard, on various occasions, even in circumstances in which it did not determine that domestic institutions had acted negligently or contrary to the obligations established under the Convention, the Court has ruled that it may carry out its own assessment and analysis of the facts, considering, according to the circumstances of the case, aspects such as the existence of “additional elements” (elements not considered by the domestic jurisdiction), facts not included in the domestic judgments or the arguments of the parties in the international proceedings on the conclusions reached in those judgments (cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, paras. 171 and 172; Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2020, Series C No. 406, paragraphs 108 and 109, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 131). 148 34