34 corresponding reparations.83 Therefore, the analysis of the alleged disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco cannot be isolated from the means in which those facts allegedly occurred nor can the corresponding juridical consequences be determined within the gap created by decontextualization, since there are arguments according to which the alleged forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco was not an isolated case in Mexico. 117. Thus, in seeking to establish the background that could result in international responsibility in the present case, the Court will analyze the context in which it has been argued that the facts of the present case occurred. However, the Tribunal will take into consideration that, according to the State itself, they occurred before Mexico acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 118. Before proceeding to examine the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives, the Court will determine the proven facts regarding the alleged forced disappearance suffered by Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco and the context in which they allegedly occurred, in attention to the body of evidence and the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 52, 53, and 62). 119. In this sense, it shall be reiterated that, even though the burden of proof of the facts on which the argument is based corresponds to the claimant, in the proceedings on violations of human rights the State’s defense cannot fall upon the claimant’s impossibility to provide evidence when it is the State who has control of the means to clarify the facts occurred within its territory. Below, we will examine the evidence that takes into consideration this extreme and that, without detriment to it, is capable of creating the conviction of the truth of the facts argued.84 The Court considers it appropriate to reiterate that, given that the State did not forward a copy of preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/2007 (supra para. 88), the facts mentioned below have been determined based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal and in the parties’ statements that were not invalidated or contested. A. Background: Facts regarding the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco A1. The alleged victim, Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco 120. Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco was born on March 20, 1914 at Las Clavellinas, State of Guerrero, Mexico.85 On September 13, 1941 he married Victoria Martínez Neri,86 with whom he had twelve children, namely: Romana, Andrea, Evelina, Rosa, Tita, Ana María, Agustina, 83 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 53 and 63; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 51, para. 202; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 76. 84 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 24, para. 135; Case of Ríos et al, supra note 60, para. 198, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 83. 85 Cf. Copy of the baptism certificate of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, issued by the Parrish of Santa María de la Asunción de Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero, on September 5, 2007 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 5, folio 911). 86 Cf. Copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Parrish of Santa María de la Asunción de Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero, undated (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 6, folio 913).