and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties and the Commission, the statements and the expert opinions, when establishing the facts of the case and ruling on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the whole body of evidence and the arguments that have been presented during the case. 47 VI PROVEN FACTS 106. Following an analysis of the probative elements, the statements of witnesses and expert witnesses, as well as the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, the Court considers proved the facts described below that were not contested by the State at any time during the proceedings. In addition, the facts described below that occurred prior to the date on which Brazil accepted the Court’s jurisdiction (December 10, 1998) serve as background information to contextualize what happened after that date. A. Historical context 107. As the Court indicated in its judgment in the case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil: 48 85. In April 1964, a military coup overthrew the government of President João Goulart. The military regime was established on the basis of the national security doctrine and the issue of successive “national security laws” and regulations during a state of emergency, such as the institutional acts, “that served as the supposed legal framework to provide juridical support to the increasing repression.” This period was characterized by “the installation of a repressive apparatus that took on characteristics of a truly powerful nature parallel to that of the State,” reaching its “peak” with the issue of Institutional Act No. 5, in December 1968. Among other acts of repression during that period, the National Congress was closed, there was complete press censure, and individual and political rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the guarantee of habeus corpus were suspended. Also, the scope of the military justice system was extended and a National Security Law introduced life imprisonment and the death penalty, among other measures. 86. Between 1969 and 1974, a “devastating attack was mounted on the armed opposition groups.” The mandate of President Médici (1969-1974) represented “the most extreme phase of the repression during the 21 years of the military regime” in Brazil. Subsequently, “during the first three years of the [Government of President] Geisel [19741979], the disappearance of political prisoners, which initially represented only a fraction of the deaths that occurred, became the predominant pattern so as not to reveal the contradiction between the discourse on an opening-up and the systematic repetition of the regular fake official reports of assaults, escape attempts, and false suicides.” Thus, as of 1974 “there were no more deaths in the prisons, all of the political detainees who died had ‘disappeared,’ [and] thereafter the regime did not admit to the murder of its opponents.” 87. According to the Special Commission, almost 50,000 people were detained just in the first few months of the dictatorship; around 20,000 prisoners were subjected to torture; there were 354 politically-motivated deaths and disappearances; 130 people were expelled from the country; the mandates and political rights of 4,862 people were suspended, and hundreds of rural workers were murdered. The Special Commission noted 47 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2015, Series C No 330, para. 22. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, paras. 85 and ff. 48 23