21 87. The Court notes that only the common intervenors forwarded a few of the administrative recourses filed by some of the dismissed employees, although the common intervenors, the State, and the Commission had been asked to provide them as helpful evidence. In this regard, the State declared that “it does not have the corresponding administrative files, owing to the changes in the Administration at that time and the fire in the administrative offices on April 6, 1994, and therefore had been unable to obtain this information.” The common intervenors stated that they had been unable to obtain most of the recourses “because of the passage of time.” Consequently, the Court has no information on the content of all the recourses filed or the scope of the decisions taken in many of those recourses, or the date on which they were filed. In addition, it is not clear who and how many of the alleged victims filed administrative recourses, or if any administrative resolution was issued other than the 18 that appear among the documentation provided to the Court. 88. Regarding the documentation and information that the State and the common intervenors were repeatedly requested to provide (supra para. 53) and that they did not submit, the Court recalls that the parties should send the Court the evidence it requests. The Commission, the representatives and the State should facilitate all the probative elements requested so that the Court has all possible evidence in order to examine the facts and to justify its decisions. VII PROVEN FACTS 89. Based on the evidence provided and taking into account the statements made by the parties, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved: Historical context of Peru at the time of the facts 89(1) On July 28, 1990, Alberto Fujimori Fujimori assumed the Presidency of Peru under the 1979 Constitution, with a five-year mandate.11 89(2) On April 5, 1992, President Fujimori Fujimori broadcast the “Manifesto to the Nation” in which he stated, inter alia, that he considered that he had “the responsibility to assume an exceptional approach to try and accelerate the process of […] national reconstruction and ha[d] therefore, […] decide[d] […] to temporarily dissolve the Congress of the Republic[, …] to modernize the public administration, [and] to reorganize the Judiciary completely.” The following day, based on this manifesto, Mr. Fujimori established transitorily the so-called “Emergency and National Reconstruction Government” by Decree Law No. 25418,12 which stipulated: […] Article 2. The institutional reform of the country is a fundamental goal of the Emergency and National Reconstruction Government, in order to achieve an authentic democracy. […] This reform seeks the following goals: 11 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court . Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 56(1). 12 Cf. Decree Law No. 25418 of April 6, 1992, published the following day, which issued the Basic Law for the Emergency and National Reconstruction Government (file of appendixes to the application, tome I, appendix 5, folios 488 to 490).