19 deemed that “more than two hundred thousand people” were victims of arbitrary execution and forced disappearance as a consequence of the political violence.42 According to the Commission for Historical Clarification (hereinafter “CEH”), the State forces and paramilitary groups were responsible for 93% of the human rights violations, including 91% of the forced disappearances. Of the total, “80% were carried out by the Army, 12% were carried out by the Civil Self-Defense Patrols, 8% were committed by other security forces, principally by the National Police. [Likewise] 11% of the disappearances […] committed by the Army, were carried out with the CSDP, and 6% were carried out with military In the framework of that doctrine, the intervention of military power delegates.”43 increased to face the subversion, a concept which included any person or organization that represented any form of opposition to the State to which the notion of “the ‘internal enemy,’ intrinsic to the National Security Doctrine, expanded even more each time for the State.”44 65. The CEH concluded that, in application of such doctrine, 91% of the violations it registered were carried out during years 1978 and 1983, under the dictatorships of the Generals Romeo Lucas García (1978-1982) and Efraín Ríos Montt (1982-1983).45 On the date of the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech, General Romeo Lucas García exercised the role of President of the Republic and Commander in Chief of the Army,46 and General Ángel Aníbal Guevara Rodríguez was the Minister of National Defense.47 66. Specifically during the years 1980 and 1983, several phenomenons occurred that affected authority and leadership of the indigenous structures, forced disappearance being among them.48 In terms of ethnicity, “83.3% of the victims of human rights violations and acts of violence registered by the [CEH] belong to some Mayan ethnicity, 16.5% belong to the ladino group, and 0.2% to other groups.”49 67. As it has been established in other cases regarding Guatemala heard by this Tribunal, forced disappearance of persons in that country constituted a practice of the State during the time of the internal armed conflict, which was carried out mainly by agents of its security forces. They would be clandestinely detained without giving notice to a competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority; they were physically and psychologically 42 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome IV, Chapter IV, page 21, para. 2, and Case Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala, supra note 40, para. 48. 43 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of the Silence, supra note **, Chapter XI: Volume 2, par 2053 y 2057. 44 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome V, Chapter IV, page 24, para. 15 and Tome II, Chapter XI, page 426, para. 2094. Cf. expert opinion of María Eugenia Morales Aceña of Sierra authenticated before a public notary on 13 of January of 2010 (brief of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Tome IV, f. 568 Bis). 45 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome V, Chapter IV, pág 42, para. 82, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 12, para. 71. 46 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome I, Chapter I, page 184, para. 588. 47 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome I, Chapter I, page 193, para. 622. 48 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome II, Chapter III, page 167, para. 4339, and expert opinion of Mónica Pinto authenticated ante public notary on 30 of December of 2009 (brief of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Tome IV, f. 519). 49 CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra note 35, Tome II, Chapter II, page 321, para. 1745. Cf. Case Tiu Tojín, supra note 40, para. 48.