2 victimized people in the periods 1983-1984 and 1989-1992 (paras. 73, 70 and 76); also, “the practice of forced disappearance was a mechanism of anti-subversive fight systematically used by the State agents between 1988 and 1993,” estimating that the “members of the Armed Forces” where those “charged with the greatest proportion (more than 60%) of the victims of forced disappearance caused by State agents in the period 1980-2000" (para. 77). 6. Then, the Inter-American Commission transcribed, out of the Final Report of the CVR, the “stages” in which this macabre practice was conducted: "victim selection and detention, deposit in a detention center, eventual transfer to another detention center, interrogation, torture, processing of the information obtained, decision of elimination, physical elimination, disappearance of victim´s remains, use of State resources” (para. 78). 7. The Final Report of the CVR, extensively quoted in the application filed by the InterAmerican Commission before this Court, refers to a criminal practice by the State, encompassing a “clandestine circuit” of arbitrary detentions followed by extra-legal executions (para. 150). The Grupo Colina was a group of extermination inserted within the SIN structure (leaded by Vladimiro Montesinos) to face alleged “enemies” of the regime of the then President Alberto Fujimori (paras. 96 and 85). The Grupo Colina operated with State resources (para. 80), and "fullfilled a State policy which consisted in the identification, control and elimination of those people suspected to belong to insurgent groups, by systematic actions of indiscriminate extra-legal executions, selective murders, forced disappearances and tortures” (para. 89). 2. The Determination of Facts by the Inter-American Court. 8. In this Judgment of the case La Cantuta, in chapter VII, regarding the proven facts, the Inter-American Court, taking into account the Final Report of the CVR, set forth that "Arbitrary executions were a systematic practice carried out in the backdrop of the contra-subversive strategy of State agents, especially during the hardest times of the conflict (1983-1984 and 1989-1992)" (para. 80(1)). There was a whole organized state power structure, and the extra-legal executions did not constitute isolated or sporadic facts, but a behavior pattern by the State in the context of its above mentioned strategy, leading to a truly criminal practice, applying resources and material means of the State itself. 9. The modus operandi, as identified by the CVR and recapped by this Court, consisted in the "selection of the victim, detention, deposit of the victim in a detention center, contingent transfer to other detention center, interrogation, torture, processing of the data obtained, decision to eliminate the victim, physical elimination, concealment of victim´s remains and use of State resources.” The common denominator in the whole process was “the denial of the detention itself and denial of any information on what had happened to the arrested person. That is, the victim entered an established circuit of clandestine detention, which only very lucky people could survive.” (para. 80(5)). 10. Regarding the “methods applied to destroy evidence” of the crimes committed, the Court remembers that the CVR itself pointed out that these included, among others, “mutilation or incineration” of the mortal remains of the victims (para. 80(7). In this case of