points that, in its view, were crucial for the Court as it assessed this procedure: (i) the replica of the Japanese ambassador's residence did not compare perfectly with the original residence, as for example, the replica did not show the additional staircase between the first two floors of the residence; (ii) the replica was not complete, as the back part of the building, where the body of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez was found and where his extrajudicial execution had presumably taken place, was included neither in the model, nor in the reconstruction of the facts, and (iii) the procedure had dramatized actions by several members of the MRTA, including the alleged victims in the case, which did not necessarily reflect what had actually happened but, in the words of the State, served as “an illustration” and an approximation. It added that, regardless of the lack of evidentiary value of the reconstruction exercise as a result of all these considerations, in the view of the Commission, the procedure to reconstruct the facts could hold “limited evidentiary scope” concerning the way in which Operation Nipón 96 or Operation Chavín de Huántar had actually occurred, but had “no evidentiary value whatsoever” concerning the way Eduardo Nicolas Cruz Sanchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva had died. The Commission also underscored the difficulty of ascribing evidentiary value to the procedure to reconstruct the facts when the State had not clearly associated it with the totality of the evidence contained in the case file. The Commission concluded that the exercise “was not a reconstruction of the facts per se, but rather, a demonstration of the position of one of the parties to a litigation.” 138. The Court finds, with respect to the procedure whose purpose was to substantiate the physical and spatial circumstances surrounding the legally relevant facts that are essentially in dispute (supra para. 133), that it had provided an important illustrative overall view. It gave the Court a sense of the circumstances of means, time and place in which the hostage rescue operation had been conducted in order to gauge, understand, and frame the specific facts that stand as the basis of the alleged violations brought before it. The Court therefore holds the procedure as valid and will assess it within the overall body of evidence in the case, under the rules of sound judicial discretion, particularly considering the arguments given by the representatives and the Commission. The parties’ arguments will be examined on this basis throughout the coming chapters. VIII FACTS A. Context 139. To establish the context relating to the armed conflict in Peru, the Court has turned repeatedly to the conclusions issued on August 28, 2003, by the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (hereinafter CVR), Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 90 following publication of its final report on August 28, 2003. This commission was created by the State in 2001 to “to clarify the process, the matters of fact and the responsibility for the terrorist violence and the violation of human rights that had occurred since May 1980 and extended until November 2000, attributable both to terrorist organizations and State agents, and also to promote Cf. Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra; Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra. 90