25 62. The State denied the relationship of this case with the context mentioned and indicated that the latter is not part of the object of the present case. It requested that the Court base its decisions solely on the case file of the criminal proceedings underway against the alleged victims for the purpose of determining what happened to Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. It indicated that “any other characterization” of what happened “is nothing but the inappropriate search for the opening of the litigation to issues that escape from the facts of the case.” Without prejudice to the foregoing, and in the event that the Court decides to assess the abovementioned context, the State put forward several arguments in order to refute what it considers to be unfounded generalizations that would have specific implications on the concrete facts of this case. 63. This Court has held that in cases involving highly complex facts, in which the existence of patterns or practices of massive, systematic or 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 international 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 described circumstances,55 in light of the body of evidence. 64. Consequently, the Court has considered that, when assessing elements of the context, in general terms, is not attempting to rule on the global phenomena related to a case, or judge the different circumstances included in that context.56 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 aspects that scape to what took place in certain case. On the contrary, the Court takes these facts into consideration as part of the arguments of the parties within their litigation. 65. The Court notes that both in its report on the merits57 and in its application,58 the Commission framed the human rights violations that occurred in this case in a context of alleged abuses on the part of military forces in Guerrero, some patterns with respect to the use of torture and its impact on judicial proceedings, as well as the use of the military jurisdiction for the investigation of cases of human rights violations. Therefore, said a context is the object of the present litigation and relates to the facts alleged. In the analysis of the merits of the case and the possible award of reparations, the Court shall analyze the scope of this alleged contexts and the additional allegations of the representatives. VII RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS 4. General description of the processes and jurisdictional levels that assessed the facts in the domestic sphere 55 Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 50. 56 See Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 32 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 51. 57 Cf. Report on the Merits N° 88/08, paras. 166, 167, 170, 191, 193 to 196, 199 and 200, supra note 3, folios 65, 66, 70, 72, 73, and 75. 58 Cf. Application brief, paras. 133, 134, 138, 152, 153, 159 to 161, 163, 166 and 167, supra note 52, folios 61, 62, 67,69, 70, 71 and 73.