28 b) The second family group consisted of Ramón Hilario Morán 60 and his wife Dionicia Guillén Riveros 61 (aged 26 and 24, respectively), who had two children, Raúl and Héctor Hilario Guillén (1 year and 6 years old, respectively), and who lived on a second farm located in the Rodeo Pampa annex. B. Context: the conflict in Peru and the situation in the Department of Huancavelica and the Santa Bárbara area 85. In previous cases, the Court has acknowledged that, from the early 1980s until the end of 2000, Peru experienced a conflict between armed groups and members of the police and the military forces. 62 This conflict was aggravated by the systematic practice of human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups. These practices were also carried out by State agents following the orders of their military and police commanders. 63 The Court has noted that the suffering caused to Peruvian society by Sendero Luminoso 64 (the Shining Path) and the Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru (hereinafter “MRTA”) is widely and publicly known. 65 86. According to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, hereinafter “CVR”), starting in October 1981 the use of “states of emergency was expanded” and “consequently, the constitutional guarantees relating to the inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom of association and personal liberty and safety were suspended” for renewable periods of time.” 66 In this regard, on June 14, 1991, an extension was decreed of the State of Emergency in the Department of Huancavelica, “suspending the exercise of the rights of inviolability of the home, free movement, assembly, and [the right] not to be detained except by a judicial order or in flagrante delicto.” In addition, the Armed Forces assumed control of public order in that Department, 67 applying the legal provisions established by Law No. 24(1)50 of June 5, 1985, 68 which stated in articles 4 and 10: Article 4- The control of internal order in emergency zones is assumed by a Political-Military Command, under the authority of a High Ranking Officer appointed by the President of the Republic, and proposed by the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, who performs the functions inherent to the position established by the present law within the scope of his jurisdiction, in accordance with the directives and emergency plans approved by the President of the Republic. Article 10- Members of the Armed Forces or Police Forces, as well as all those subject to the Code of Military Justice who are serving in areas declared to be in a state of emergency, are subject to the application of the aforementioned code. The infractions specified in the Code of Military Justice that are committed in the exercise of their functions are the competence of the military jurisdiction, except for those that are not related to the service. Jurisdictional disputes shall be resolved within a maximum period of thirty days. 87. According to the CVR’s Final Report, a curfew from 7:00 p.m. to 6:a.m. was imposed in the city of Huancavelica. However, under the pretext of maintaining order at night, members of 60 The parents of Ramón Hilario Morán are: Dolores Morán Paucar (deceased) and Viviano Hilario Mancha (deceased), and their son is Abilio Hilario Quispe. 61 The parents of Dionicia Guillén Riveros are Justiniano Guillén Ccanto (deceased) and Victoria Riveros Valencia (deceased), and her sister is Marcelina Guillén Riveros. 62 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 197.1, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 140. 63 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 46, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 143. 64 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008. Series C No. 181, para. 41, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 52. 65 Cf. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, paras. 52 and 53. 66 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 61, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 54. 67 Cf. Supreme Decree No. 031-91 DE-MINDEF of June 14, 1991, published on June 21, 1991, in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” (evidence file, folio 2472). 68 Cf. Law No. 24.150 of June 5, 1985 (evidence file, folio 2473).