58 70. Furthermore, the judicial decision of December 7, 2000, which ordered the preventive detention of the accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda and Sabino Augusto Montanaro, for the subsequent purpose of requesting their extradition (supra para. 61(75)), indicates: […] There is firm evidence of responsibility linking the defendants Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda and Sabino Augusto Montanaro […] to the abduction and disappearance of Dr. Agustín Goiburú. In addition, it should be recalled that, at the time of the facts, there was a dictatorship in Paraguay, as indicated in Act No. 838/96, which states that, when Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda was in power there was real State terrorism where the fundamental rights of the human being were violated. […] Terrorism organized by the State itself is a form of organized crime that has occurred in numerous countries and, in particular, in Latin America, where the police forces, diplomatic service, Government officials and military officials in Government have coordinated and carried out “cleansing tasks” and “special death flights.” This type of criminal organization has even crossed frontiers, with agents in border countries, as occurred in this case, where the Paraguayan Consul, Francisco Ortiz Téllez, appointed by decree signed by the dictator Alfredo Stroessner, acted as a monitoring agent and informer in the border country with and among those who planned and executed countless illegal acts, ranging from murder to abductions and torture. “Operation Condor” was the code name of this international criminal organization.54 71. Also, the judicial decision issued on August 4, 1993, by the Fourth Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the preventive detention for the purpose of extradition of Alfredo Stroessner, because “there [was] sufficient evidence of responsibility against the accused […] taking into account the circumstances that he had been informed in detailed about the repressive operations carried out by police and military forces.” The court also found: […] That the almost complete evidence of the existence of a criminal act that merits imprisonment has been corroborated in the proceedings. […] They document the participation of ESMAGENFA in the alleged repressive operations carried out in the 1970s against political activists and leaders opposed to the Government in power at the time, as well as the reports periodically sent to the then President of the Republic and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, describing the operations of pursuit, capture, arrest and detention of individuals, without any judicial order, in offices of the Asunción Police Investigations Department. That, in relation to the sufficient evidence of responsibility arising from the conduct of Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda with regard to the investigation underway in these preliminary criminal proceedings, we should mention that a great deal of evidence has been provided against him, showing the control exercised by the Government over the activities of individuals it considered dangerous. There is information on the strict control of the different activities of these individuals. The accused, Alfredo Stroessner, personally exercised harsh repression and firm control of the opposing trade unions and students in their homes or their places of work, according to memorandums attached to the proceedings. From the proceedings, also, it is evident that the Head of Investigations informed the President of the Republic constantly about all the activities that were considered subversive in all social spheres of the country. During the perpetration of the alleged illegal act investigated in this case – in 1976 – the repressive mechanism is documented and also the absence of the constitutional rights to liberty and freedom of expression for the population in general, and peasant farmers, workers and students, owing to the actions of the Asunción Police through the Investigations Department and the Army, through ESMAGENFA. In this regard, there is sufficient evidence of responsibility against the accused STROESSNER MATIAUDA based on the 54 Cf. ruling of December 7, 2000, delivered b the No. 3 Criminal Tribunal (de Liquidación and Sentencia) (file of attachments to the application, attachment 1(2), tome I, folio 82 and attachment 1(3), tome III, folio 2197).