detention and concealment of information about what had happened to the detainee. 67 These stages were not necessarily carried out consecutively. 68 57. Similarly, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concluded that “the vast majority of the 3,004 cases of reported disappearances in Peru occurred between 1983 and 1992,” a time during which State’s counterinsurgency agents “were granted a great deal of latitude” and acted mainly in areas that were under a state of emergency, but also in other areas of Peru. 69 58. This Court has also ruled on the State’s policy that encouraged the perpetration of the enforced disappearance of those persons who were suspected of belonging to the insurgent groups in Peru. 70 In particular, the systematic practice of enforced disappearance was also fostered by the general situation of impunity of gross human rights violations that existed at the time, encouraged and tolerated by the absence of judicial guarantees and the ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions to deal with the systematic violation of human rights. 71 In this regard, “in most cases, the complaints of the next of kin of the disappeared were followed by inaction or timid and ineffective actions of the Judiciary and of the Public Prosecution Service; [which] was proved by their unwillingness to investigate, and even the obstruction of investigations.” 72 The CVR also established that the Judiciary had not complied satisfactorily with its mission to end the impunity of State agents who had committed gross human rights violations, which contributed to this situation. 73 B. The gross human rights violations in the province of Cajatambo during the internal armed conflict 59. The province of Cajatambo is located in the central occidental part of the Andean cordillera in the extreme northeast of the department of Lima, at approximately 3,376 meters above sea level. 74 60. According to the final report of the CVR, starting in 1985, Shining Path began to execute armed operations against the inhabitants of Cajatambo and other highland provinces in the north 67 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VI, Chapter 1.2, p. 84 (evidence file, volume III, annex 12 to the submission of the case, folio 1529). 68 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VI, Chapter 1.2, p. 84 (evidence file, volume III, annex 12 to the submission of the case, folio 1529). 69 Cf. United Nations, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, E/CN.4/1998/43, 12 January 1998, para. 297 (evidence file, volume III, annex 14 to the submission of the case, folio 1606). 70 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, supra, para. 76; Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 60.9; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 54.1 to 54.4, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, paras. 83 and 84. 71 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 92, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 136. 72 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VI, Chapter 1.2, p. 110 (evidence file, volume III, annex 14 to the submission of the case, folio 1555). 73 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VIII, General conclusions, paras. 123 a 131 (evidence file, volume III, annex 13 to the submission of the case, folios 1595 and 1596). 74 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume IV, Chapter 1.6, p. 468; Available at http://cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/. 22