Truth and Reconciliation Commission and of the Inter-American Commission, they considered that the Court should find that it had been proved that the alleged detention and subsequent disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had occurred in a context during which there was a systematic practice of enforced disappearances by State agents, and that the events occurred in a region where members of the Army were in control of the area, and their intervention was based on the prior planning of operations and interventions. In particular, the representatives argued that it had been proved sufficiently that the presumed victim had been detained by agents of the Peruvian State on April 28, 1991, and that, subsequently, false information was provided on his whereabouts, so that he has been disappeared since April 30 that year, without any knowledge of his whereabouts to date; thus, the State is internationally responsible for these facts. 106. The representatives referred to the systematic nature of enforced disappearance from 1989 to 1993, and also to its modus operandi. In this regard, they agreed with the facts presented by the Commission and added that the CVR had concluded that enforced disappearance had been “one of the main mechanisms of the counterinsurgency effort used by State agents, acquiring the characteristics of a systematic or generalized practice.” Regarding the inversion of the burden of proof, the representatives referred to the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, and argued that, if it was possible to demonstrate that a Government practice of disappearances existed, no additional evidence was needed in order to prove the disappearance in a specific case, even though the State may have denied, by means of a judgment, the systematic pattern of enforced disappearances in the province of Cajatambo. 107. Regarding the supposed release of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, the representatives argued that the document identified as a record of release was handwritten, without any stamp or distinctive marking that would corroborate that it was drawn up by the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base, because it was not signed by any other soldier from this base. Moreover, no record of release was drawn up for Gudmer Tulio Zárate Osorio. In addition, the representatives rejected the graphology appraisal of the record and impugned the testimony concerning the release of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. The representatives referred to the reports of the Commission that referred to records of release that contained the forged signature of the victim or, at times, the real signature obtained by torture when, in fact, the release had never taken place. 108. The State affirmed that the presumptions of the Commission and the representatives did not attain the level of confidence required for the Court to attribute responsibility to the Peruvian State for the presumed enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. The State indicated, by an analysis made in light of the CVR Report, that this case did not correspond to the modus operandi of enforced disappearance because Jeremías Osorio Rivera was not selected previously as a potential victim. In this regard, the State argued that, prior to his detention, there were no incidents that would lead to the presumption that he was being threatened, intimidated or harassed by State agents, nor was there evidence of that he had previously filed a public complaint because he believed that he was in danger. The State affirmed that his arrest was due to a circumstantial act, not because he was being monitored or had been identified as a presumed member of a terrorist group and, also, that his detention was not clandestine, but rather public. The State also argued that the time spent by Jeremías Osorio Rivera in the place that the Army patrol occupied in the community of Nunumia, the transfer to the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base, his confinement there, and subsequent release on May 1, 1991, were not denied or hidden by military personnel. The State indicated that, contrary to the usual practice in cases of enforced disappearance, from the very start, the members of the Army, especially Lieutenant Tello Delgado, provided information to the family members and other individuals who inquired about Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s situation. 40