- 19 - structural human rights violations are alleged, it is even more difficult to seek a strict delimitation of the facts. Thus, the litigation submitted to the Court cannot be examined piecemeal or trying to exclude those contextual elements that could inform the judge about the historical, material, temporal and spatial circumstances in which the alleged facts took place. Nor is it necessary to distinguish or categorize each alleged fact, because the dispute submitted can only be settled based on an assessment of all the circumstances described. 51. Consequently, the Court is not attempting to rule on the global phenomenon of paramilitarism, or judge the different circumstances included in that context.53 Furthermore, it is not called on to rule on the different facts alleged by the State and the representatives, or on public policies adopted at different times to counter such diverse and complex aspects of the generalized violence during the 1980s and 1990s in Colombia. The Court takes these facts into consideration as part of the arguments of the parties within their litigation. With regard to the normative that the State is attempting to exclude from this case, it is evident that “[t]he purpose of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction is not to review domestic laws in abstract; rather it is exercised in order to decide specific cases in which it is alleged that an act [or omission] of the State, executed against specific individuals, is contrary to the Convention.”54 52. Hence, at the merits and possible reparations stage of the case, the Court will merely observe, in keeping with the arguments of the parties, whether specific procedures or acts that occurred based on those laws and mechanisms have had an impact on the alleged violations of the Convention, in particular with regard to the State’s obligation to investigate the facts effectively.55 In these terms, the Court will assess the evidence and proceed to adjudicate upon the disputed elements of the merits of the case. IV.2 EVIDENCE 53. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 49 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,56 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, the statements provided by affidavit, and those received at the public hearing, together with the helpful evidence requested by the 53 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 16, para. 32. 54 Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50; Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 154, and Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 130, footnote 158. See also, International responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 48. 55 The State concurred with this when, on alleging that issues relating to demobilization, the Justice and Peace Law and Law 1312 exceeded the purposes of this case, it affirmed that the Court “may examine those aspects that directly refer to the criminal investigations into the facts that have been conducted in Colombia, exclusively in relation to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection.” Cf. final written arguments of the State, para. 81. 56 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 38, paras. 67, 68 and 69, and Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34.