20 54. In view of the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 32-4) and in accordance with the body of evidence of the instant case, the Court holds the following facts to have been proven: a) The practice of forced disappearance of persons in Peru 54.1. Between the years 1989 and 1993, the forced disappearance of persons became a systematic and generalized practice implemented by the State as a mechanism of anti-subversive struggle. The victims of this practice have been individuals identified by police authorities, by the military forces and by the paramilitary commandos, as alleged members, collaborators or supporters of Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) or the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amarú (Tupac Amarú Revolutionary Movement). As from the coup d’etat on April 5, 1992, the implementation of this practice spawned, for it coincided with the lack of simple and expeditious judicial remedies such as habeas corpus, something which created an environment inconsistent with the effective protection of the right to life and other human rights in the country.12 54.2. Forced disappearance of persons was a complex practice which required a set of acts or stages to be carried out by different groups of persons. In many cases, this involved the physical elimination of the victim and the concealment of the victim’s body. The process comprised the following stages, which were not necessarily consecutive: selection of the victim, detention of the individual, imprisonment in a confinement center, possible transportation to another confinement unit, interrogation, torture and the processing of the information thus obtained. On many occasions, the decision to eliminate the victim and to conceal of the victim’s remains ensued. In order to destroy the evidence of such acts, the bodies of the victims were incinerated, mutilated, abandoned in inaccessible or isolated areas, were buried or parts of their remains were scattered in different places.13 54.3. Detention would be carried out by violent means, usually at the residence of the victim, in public places, in raids or in public institutions, by individuals with balaclavas and weapons, in numbers sufficient to overcome any possible resistance. Throughout the process, the common feature denying detention itself and withholding all information whatsoever about what was going on with the detainee. In other words, an individual was introduced into an established circuit of 12 Cf. Report by the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación del Perú (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru) signed on August 27, 2003, in the city of Lima, Peru, (Appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 13), and report rendered before an official whose acts command full faith and credit (affidavit) by the expert Sofía Macher, on September 2, 2005 (file on the merits, reparations and costs, Volume II, pages 520 to 548). 13 Cf. Report by the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación del Perú (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru) signed on August 27, 2003, in the city of Lima, Peru, (Appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 13), and report rendered before an official whose acts command full faith and credit (affidavit) by the expert Sofía Macher, on September 2, 2005 (file on the merits, reparations and costs, Volume II, pages 520 to 548).