in the Order requiring them 54 and the purpose of this case, and they will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the rest of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations of the parties. In addition, pursuant to this Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be evaluated together with the whole body of evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 55 51. During the public hearing, the representatives asked the Court not to accept the validity of the expert opinion of Esteban Segundo Abad Agurto provided by affidavit, considering that the author failed to cite the sources of his information, and it had been noted that parts were a literal copy from other reports. 56 In its final written arguments, the State indicated that, having analyzed the situation, it had “reconsidered its decision to offer and to use the said expert opinion as evidence,” and expressly asked the Court not to take it into consideration because it was withdrawing it forthwith. 52. Taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, and having verified that several parts of the expert opinion are copied textually or paraphrased from the contents of the report entitled “En Honor a la Verdad” without this report having been cited in the opinion, the Court decides to accept the withdrawal of this document and, thus, it will not be considered part of the body of evidence in this case. VI FACTS A. Context 53. Starting at the beginning of the 1980s and up until the end of 2000, Peru endured a conflict between armed groups and members of the military and police forces. 57 In previous cases, this Court has recognized that this conflict intensified amid a systematic practice of human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions and the enforced disappearance of persons suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups, such as the Peruvian Communist Party, Sendero Luminoso (hereinafter “Shining Path”) and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (hereinafter “MRTA”), acts carried out by State agents on the orders of leaders of the military and police forces. 58 54 The purposes of all these statements was established in the Order of the acting President of the Court for this case of July 8, 2013, first and fifth operative paragraphs, available on the Court’s website at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/osorio_08_07_13.pdf 55 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 16. 56 Specifically, the representatives argued with regard to the expert’s opinion that most of the paragraphs were copied from other reports without any reference, including information taken directly from monografías.com and from the report identified as “En Honor a la Verdad” of the Permanent Historical Commission of the Peruvian Army. 57 Cf. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume I, Chapter 1, pp. 54 and 55 (evidence file, volume III, annex 2 to the submission of the case, folios 1187 and 1188). See also, 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. 58 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 46; Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 42; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 63; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 67(a); Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 72.2; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, para. 197.1, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20