The vast majority of the 3,004 cases of reported disappearances in Peru occurred between 1983 and 1992, in the context of the Government’s fight against terrorist organizations, especially the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). In late 1982, the armed forces and police undertook a counterinsurgency campaign and the armed forces were granted a great deal of latitude in fighting Sendero Luminoso and in restoring public order. While the majority of reported disappearances took place in areas of the country which had been under a state of emergency and were under military control, in particular in the departments of Ayacucho, Huancavelica, San Martín, and Apurimac, disappearances also took place in other parts of Peru. (…)27 61. In its March 1993 report on the human rights situation in Peru, the IACHR underscored that, in the five years prior to publication of the above-mentioned document, 43 final rulings on petitions reporting the forced disappearance of a total of 106 victims were adopted. The IACHR also stressed that, between 1987 and 1990, Peru was the country with the highest number of disappearances in the world.28 62. In various final reports on the merits, the IACHR concluded that, between 1989 and 1993, “there existed in Peru a systematic and selective practice of forced disappearances, carried out by agents of the Peruvian State” and stressed that “that official practice of forced disappearances was part of the ‘fight against subversion’, although in many cases it harmed people who had nothing to do with the activities related to dissident groups.”29 The IACHR also concluded that, in the nineties, forced disappearances were not investigated seriously and those responsible, as executors of an official state plan, enjoyed de facto impunity that was virtually absolute. 63. As for the Inter-American Court, it has statements about the prevalence, for many years, of a government policy that promoted the perpetration of selective killings, forced disappearances, and torture of those persons it suspected of belonging to insurgent groups in Peru.30 Thus, it has contended that, from the start of the eighties up to the end of the year 2000, Peru experienced a conflict pitting armed groups against agents of the police and armed forces.31 64. The Court has established that the systematic practice of forced disappearances was fostered by the widespread situation of impunity for the severe human rights violations that prevailed at that time, promoted and tolerated by the absence of judicial guarantees and the ineffectiveness of judicial institutions to tackle systematic human rights violations.32 3. Universities – front line for state repression 27 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. UN Document ONU E/CN.4/1998/43, January 12, 1998, para. 297, available at: www2.ohchr.org/spanish/issues/disappear/annual.htm 28 IACHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83, Doc. 31, March 12, 1993, Section I. Background, C. Human rights problems identified by the Commission, paras. 16 and 17, available: www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Peru93sp/indice.htm 29 IACHR, Report No. 51/99, Case 10.471, Anetro Castillo Pezo et al. v. Peru, April 13, 1999, para. 75, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/98span/Fondo/Peru%2010.471.htm See also the final reports on the merits Nos. 52/99, 53/99, 54/99, 55/99, 56/99, and 57/99, published by IACHR in 1999 and available at: www.cidh.oas.org/casos/99sp.htm 30 I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006, Series C No. 162, paras. 83 and 84; Case of Gómez Palomino, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 54.1 and Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C, No. 21, para. 60.9. 31 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 197.1, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013, Series C No. 274, para. 53. 32 I/A Court H.R. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 92, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 136; and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013, Series C No. 274, para. 58.