40 133. The forced disappearances examined occurred in specific political, social, and economic circumstances.110 In this regard, the National Commission established that […] in the scenario of the presidential succession of 1970, while a political-electoral battle was being developed in plain sight without surprises, scores of activists were found in secrecy, dedicated full-time to their own tasks, as a prior and necessary step for the subsequent development of the actions. […] Between 1973 and 1974 the guerrilla actions and the counter insurgence were exacerbated. The Communist League 23 de Septiembre went on to occupy the top position in the confrontation with the federal government as of the failed kidnapping and subsequent murder of the businessman from Nuevo Leon, Eugenio Garza Sada, in September 1973. This event is followed by a time marked by drastic measures against the guerrilla: the illegal arrest, torture, and forced disappearance and, even, probable extralegal executions of militants and leaders. […] […] Other important groups of the Mexican guerilla were the “Agricultural Brigade for Executions of the Party of the Poor”, led by Professor Lucio Cabañas, whose presence was basically in the State of Guerrero. […] Its main actions were, besides ambushes to the Army and the security forces, the kidnapping in 1974 of the governor elect of Guerrero, Rubén Figueroa. The group commanded by Professor Genaro Vázquez Rojas, the “National Civic Revolutionary Association” (ACNR) also had impact on the public opinion, with its main presence also in Guerrero; it was an organization that did not survive, as part of the guerrilla, the death of its leader in February 1972. Its most well known action was the kidnapping of Jaime Castrejón Díez, at that time rector of the Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, who was exchanged for a dozen inmates of the armed movement, who were sent to Cuba by the Mexican government. […] Against these groups, the anti-subversive policy was characterized, at least until 1981, for having practically unlimited powers. Its operation was the responsibility of groups specially formed by some corporations of the [S]tate’s safety (White Brigade or Special Brigade) led by the Federal Security Office [...] […] the violence continued until the beginning of the eighties and it was translated into armed actions, confrontations, with the continuance of the excessive behavior of anti-subversive organizations and the subsequent forced disappearances that engrossed the relationship of illegal facts [...].111 134. From the investigations carried out, the National Commission observed that in those times “[t]he government instances that constitutionally had the task of seeking justice and protecting the rights of citizens, showed their incapacity and negative to prevent, investigate, and punish the facts, as well as offer the necessary help to the people 110 In that sense, the Commission indicated that it does not seek to “[p]resent a specific story or chronicle regarding the events occurred in [that] period, instead[,] it ma[de] reference to the context in which the disappearances object of the investigation of [the] National Commission occurred and[,] due to the diversity of the sources consulted, [the] statements could lack precision, which [did] not imply any judgment of value on behalf of [the] Commission regarding the groups referr[ed] to therein.” Recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folio 877 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix V(2), pages 6 and 7). 111 Cf. Recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folios 879 through 881, and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix V(2), pages 8 through 10).