ideology or who belonged to an organization – of a labor, social, religious or student nature – or those who, for whatever reason, were not in favor of the established regime.” 45 52. During the internal conflict, the intelligence services played a particularly important role. The two main military intelligence agencies were the Army’s Intelligence Sector or the Intelligence Directorate of the National Defense General Staff known as the “G-2,” and a unit of the Presidential Staff, popularly known as “La Regional” or “El Archivo.” Military intelligence was responsible for collecting and reviewing information on those persons considered internal enemies and, on this basis, it planned counterinsurgency operations. 46 53. The military intelligence system included the National Police, which supported the counterinsurgency operations of the Army and its intelligence agencies, including forced disappearances such as those that occurred in this case. 47 According to official sources, the heads and deputy heads of the Police were often members of the Army, and this had an impact on the chain of command. Moreover, the two entities were in constant communication. According to the Guatemalan Peace Secretariat, this situation “reveals that the different police units, some more than others, had become operational arms of the Armed Forces, although the latter were always in charge of decision-making.” 48 54. As has been established in other cases heard by this Court involving Guatemala, the forced disappearance of persons constituted a State practice in that country during the internal armed conflict; it was carried out mainly by members of the security forces, who captured members of insurgency movements or persons identified as susceptible of becoming insurgents. 49 According to the CEH, the State forces and related paramilitary 45 Cf. The CEH report, Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio, Guatemala, United Nations Project Office, 1999, volume II, pp. 20, 21 and 318, paras. 769, 772 and 1729, and volume V, conclusions, pp. 21 and 55, paras. 1 and 147, annex 3 to the Merits Report, Available at: http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/gmds_pdf/; Peace Secretariat, Presidency of the Republic, La autenticidad del Diario Militar, a la luz de los documentos hisóricos de la Policía Nacional, 2009, pp. 5 and 6 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome I, annex 5, folios 20 and 21); expert opinion of Marco Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla on the historical and political context of the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1540, 1543 to 1546 and 1558); expert opinion of Rember Aroldo Larios Tobar on the police structure in the case of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1624 to 1626), and expert opinion of social psychologist Marina de Villagrán on the case of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1649 and 1650). 46 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, pp. 75 and 76, paras. 947 and 952, and Peace Secretariat, supra, p. 21, folio 23. The official name of “El Archivo” was amended with the different changes of Government; during the Government of Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores it was called the “Intelligence Secretariat of the President of the Republic.” Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores was in power from August 1983 to January 1986. Cf. CEH, supra, volume I, p. 234 and volume II, p. 85, para. 983. 47 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, pp. 43 and 44, para. 847; Peace Secretariat, supra, pp. 148 and 149, folios 157 and 158; PDH, El Derecho a Saber. Informe Especial del Archivo Histórico de la Policía Nacional de Guatemala. 2009, pp. 112, 193 and 240, annex 8 to the Merits Report, Available at: http://www.pdh.org.gt/index.php/documentos/informes-especiales.html, and expert opinion of Rember Aroldo Larios Tobar on the police structure in the case of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folio 1636). http://www.pdh.org.gt/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=5&Itemid=55&limitstart=20 48 Peace Secretariat, supra, pp. 148 and 149, folios 157 and 158. Similarly, Cf. PDH, El Derecho a Saber, supra, pp. 95; CEH, supra, volume II, p. 149, paras. 1164 and 1165. 49 Cf., inter alia, Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 132; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra, para. 49, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 67. Similarly, see, expert opinion of Rember Aroldo Larios Tobar on the police structure in the case of Edgar Fernando García provided in the domestic criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1636 and 1637), and expert opinion of Fernando Arturo López Antillón on the effectiveness of habeas corpus 18