16 49. In the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has examined different historical, social and political contexts that situated the facts that were alleged to have violated the American Convention within the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In some cases, the context made it possible to characterize the facts as part of a systematic pattern of human rights violations, 23 as a practice that was applied or tolerated by the State, 24 or as part of massive and systematic or generalized attacks on one sector of the population. 25 In addition, in order to determine the international responsibility of a State, 26 the Court has taken into account its understanding and assessment of the evidence, 27 the admissibility of certain measures of reparation, and the standards established as regards the obligation to investigate such cases. 28 50. In particular, in order to establish the context relating to the armed conflict in Peru, the Court has resorted repeatedly to the Final Report issued on August 28, 2003, by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter “the CVR”), 29 created by the State in 2001 “to clarify the process, the facts, and the responsibilities of the terrorist violence and of the human rights violations committed between May 1980 and November 2000 that can be attributed to both terrorist organizations and State agents, as well as to propose initiatives to strengthen peace and harmony among Peruvians.” The report was presented to the different branches of the State, which acknowledged its conclusions and recommendations and acted in consequence, adopting policies that reflected the significance accorded to this institutional document. 30 The report provides an important reference point, because it offers a holistic vision of the armed conflict in Peru. In the instant case, the Commission, the State, and the representatives have substantiated their considerations on the context by referring to the CVR Report (supra para. 48), which forms part of the body of evidence in the case. Consequently, the Court will use it as a fundamental element of the evidence on the political and historical context at the time of the facts. 31 On this point, the Court will take into account the arguments on the context presented by the State, as well as its comments regarding the evidence. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 126, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 73. 24 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 82, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 96. 25 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 94 to 96, 98 and 99, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 244. 26 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 61 and 62, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 73 and 153. 27 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 73. 28 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 157, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 127. 29 Cf. Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 57.c, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 54. 30 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 72.1, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 54. 31 Volumes I, II, III, IV, V and VI of the Informe Final de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación have been used as a probative element in this chapter, and the information cited by the Court can be consulted in: Volume I, Chapter 1.1, pp. 54 and 55; Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 242; Volume II, Chapter 1.1, p. 13, Conclusions, pp. 127 and 128; Volume II, Chapter 1.2, pp. 164, 218, 219, 221, 205, 206 and 232; Volume II, Chapter 1.4, pp. 379 to 435; Volume III, Chapter 2.3, pp. 83 to 85; Volume IV. Chapter 1.4, p. 183; Volume V, Chapter 2.22, pp. 706 and 707; Volume VI, Chapter 1.2, pp. 112 and 11; Volume VI, Chapter 1.3, pp. 129 and 179; Volume VI, Chapter 1.4, pp. 183, 212, 214, 221 to 224, 240, 241, 250, 252, 315, 322, 324, 348 and 372; Volume VI, Chapter 1.5, pp. 272, 273, 279, 304, 306, 307 to 309, 315, 328 to 330, 337, 348, 374 to 376, and Volume VI, Chapter 1.7, pp. 547, 550 to 555 and 565. This information is available at: http://cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/