the body of evidence, the brief of pleadings and motions of the representatives and the arguments of the State. The Court will refer to these facts in the following order: a) Background relevant to the case, including: i. Vulnerability of human rights defenders; ii. Situation in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, Escuintla; b) Life and previous work of A.A. and B.A.; i. Life and work of A.A. ii. Work of B.A. c) The facts of the case: i. Facts prior to the death of A.A.; ii. The death of Mr. A.A.; iii. Facts subsequent to the death of A.A.; d) The investigations: i. Investigation related to the death of A.A.; ii. Investigation of the alleged intimidation of B.A. A) Background relevant to the case A.1. Vulnerability of human rights defenders 72. The Commission and the representatives held that the facts of this case occurred against a background of threats and attacks against human rights defenders in Guatemala. The State contested these claims, questioning the reliability and impartiality of the sources on which they were based. According to the State, the information was prepared by the representatives themselves and does not constitute “specific evidence to be able to determine the existence of a supposed systematic pattern.” It also argued that “[the] supposed context of continuous attacks stemming from the internal armed conflict ended years before the death of Mr. [A.A.].” 73. The Court recalls that, in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction, it has examined different historical, social and political contexts which enabled it to situate alleged violations of the American Convention in the context of the specific circumstances in which they occurred. In some cases, it has taken into account the background or context in order to determine the State’s international responsibility. 65 The Court considers it pertinent to examine the contextual framework to facilitate a better understanding of the evidence and the arguments in order to assess the State’s possible responsibility in this case. Accordingly, the Court will establish whether, at the time of the events, a specific context of violations against the rights of human rights defenders existed in Guatemala. 74. Between 1962 and 1996, an internal armed conflict took place in Guatemala, which had significant human, material, institutional and moral costs. 66 According to the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH), “[d]uring much of the internal armed conflict, attempts to create organizations for the defense of human rights resulted in the elimination of their leaders. During the 1980s, the emergence of new groups of defenders in several areas was met with an intense repressive action by the State, which led to the murder or disappearance of many of their members. The campaigns aimed at discrediting these types of organizations, portraying them as ‘subversive’, were a constant feature of the repression.” 67 65 Cf., inter alia, Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 53 and 63, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 52. 66 Cf. inter alia, Case Massacre Plan of Sánchez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42(1) and Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 54. 67 Cf. Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH). Guatemala, Memory of Silence. Chapter 4, Section II. Page 42 (File of attachments to pleadings and motions brief, page 4341). 21