81 201. The State acknowledged the facts presented in the application regarding what happened from May 6 to 9, 1992 in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, and it also referred to the context in which they took place, pointing out that they occurred within “a very serious situation of internal conflict,” when the Government had moved away from the “democratic institutionality one month before the [facts]” and in the framework of a law “that declared the emergency of the criminal centers and offered ‘legitimacy’ to the events that the Court is currently [studying…].” Likewise, the State added that “it is evident” that “the acts of violence were committed against inmates of a specific orientation,” since “they were directed against two pavilions, or mainly against one pavilion, pavilion 1A and pavilion 4B, occupied at the time of the events by inmates accused of crimes of terrorism linked to the communist party of Peru, Sendero Luminoso.” 202. It is important to point out the context in which the events took place, since it constitutes a political and historical environment determining for the establishment of the juridical consequences in this case, comprehending both the breaches to the Convention as well as the corresponding reparations. 203. Peru was living a conflict between armed groups and agents of police and military forces, that had caused systemic breaches to human rights, among them tortures, extrajudicial killings, and forced disappearances of people suspected of belonging to armed groups at the margin of the law, carried out by state agents following orders of military and police superiors.119 In this regard, the Court has heard several cases of breaches to human rights that occurred in this context,120 and it has established that “said serious breaches violate the international jus cogens.”121 There is background of cases corresponding to the time that went from 1991 and 2000, in which persons accused of terrorism or treason were submitted to multiple violations of their human rights in the criminal centers where they were detained.122 204. After the time of internal conflict, which ended approximately in November 2000, different bodies of the State have issued decisions regarding the referred context of violations to human rights, in which even the events of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison have been analyzed in a specific manner. 205. In this regard, it is important to point out the creation of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “CVR”) in 2001 (supra para. 197(3) to 197(7)), whose purpose was, inter alia, to clarify the process, facts, and responsibilities of terrorist violence and the violation of human rights occurred from May 1980 to November 2000, attributable both to terrorist organizations and State agents. From the analysis of the thousands of accusations it received, said Commission determined that the majority of the violations corresponded to actions attributed to State officials 119 Cfr. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 72.2; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra nota 21, para. 67.a); Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 21, para. 63(t); Case of Castillo Páez, supra note 21, para. 42; and Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 21, para. 46(l). 120 Supra note 119. 121 Cfr. Case of Hermanos Gómez Paquiyauri, supra note 21, para. 76. 122 Cfr. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 97(27) and 97(56); Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 21, para. 63 (f, j, and k); and Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 21, para. 46(i).