less human rights violations were recorded compared to those occurring in other parts of the country. 153. Regarding the modus operandi (supra para. 56), even though the Court does not have sufficient evidence to be convinced that the detention was originally carried out due to an initial selection of the victim, 269 the fact is that the radiogram sent by Lieutenant Tello Delgado to his superior officer informing him of the detention identified Mr. Osorio Rivera with a pseudonym of a “comrade” (supra para. 68). The way in which Osorio Rivera was identified as a possible member of Shining Path in the said radiogram coincides with what the CVR established as part of the modus operandi of State agents to select the victims of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. Indeed, the CVR established that “the authors of the enforced disappearance had certain criteria for the selection of victims, in particular based on the general profiles established to define those who could be members or supporters of subversive organizations.” 270 154. Consequently, the Court concludes that it has been proved that the actions following the detention were in line with the modus operandi for enforced disappearances committed by State agents during the relevant period as part of the counterinsurgency strategy, without his whereabouts being known to date. ii.4) Conclusion 155. Having verified that the evidence provided by the State does not prove that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was released following his detention by members of the Army, added to the fact that the last time that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was seen he was in the State’s custody, and that his whereabouts are still unknown, the Court concludes that State agents participated in the disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. The contextual elements assessed support this conclusion, so that the disappearance of Mr. Osorio Rivera occurred in the context of a systematic and selective practice of enforced disappearance, as part of the State’s counterinsurgency policy. 269 The same domestic court held contradictory positions on this aspect: the tenth finding indicates that the victim’s detention was not carried out in the context of the Palmira Plan of Operations and that the accused did not have prior knowledge that the victim was a “terrorist,” while the sixteenth finding asserts that “it is not credible that the accused did not know that the victim was considered a subversive.” Supreme final judgment R.N. No. 1071-2012 delivered by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic on April 17, 2013 (evidence file, volume XII, annexes to the brief with the State’s final arguments, folios 5419 to 5434). In addition, in his statement, Juan Carlos César Tello Delgado affirmed that: “up until that time, [he] did not know that they were subversives, and [he] considered them to be two drunkards, one of them in possession of a weapon,” and “up until that time, [he] did not know that the victim was wanted and that the weapon seized belonged to a police agent who had been robbed during an attack.” Preliminary statement made by Juan Carlos César Tello Delgado referred to in the judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4702 and 4703). To the contrary, Aquiles Román Atencio stated that: “[…] around 10 a.m. he went to make inquiries about the detention of Jeremías Osorio, interviewing the soldiers and then the accused, who told him that the victim was detained because he was a terrorist and that he had a weapon that belong to a police agent.” Testimonial statement made by Aquiles Román Atencio during the twelfth session of the oral proceeding held on August 5, 2008, referred to in the judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4727). During the criminal proceeding, it was proved that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was wanted by the DIRCOTE, because on January 1, 1992, he appeared as “could not be found.” Cf. Judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4713 and 4741). In his testimony, Arnulfo Roncal Vargas affirmed that: “the deponent immediately ordered the release because the villagers told him that [the victim] had reincorporated the community and his behavior had changed towards Shining Path because he had joined the ranks of the self-defense committees.” Preliminary statement made by Arnulfo Roncal Vargas referred to in the judgment delivered by the National Criminal Chamber on December 17, 2008 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 20 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4712). 270 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VI, Chapter 1.2, pp. 84 and 85 (evidence file, volume III, annex 12 to the submission of the case, folios 1529 and 1530). 56