9 identification of the deceased. On October 5, 1987, the Second Permanent Instructional Court of the Navy ratified its July 6, 1987 decision to dismiss the case, which was confirmed by the Permanent War Council of the Navy on the 7th of the same month of October. Again, on December 23, 1987, the Supreme Council of Military Justice decided to refer the case back to the instructional stage and, for that purpose, to activate the jurisdiction of its War Section. These proceedings ended on July 20, 1989 with the decision that those who participated in the crushing of the riot were not liable. 43. The Congress of Peru appointed an investigative commission to examine the events that occurred at the San Juan Bautista and two other correctional institutions. The Commission was formally installed on August 7, 1987 and, in December of that same year, submitted a majority and a minority report to Congress. In Conclusion 14, the majority report reads as follows: At 03:00 hours the Navy of Peru takes charge of the operations. Its action is in response to the conviction that the inmates are armed and equipped with fortifications and tunnels, as was later corroborated by the subsequent investigation. Also, the inmates had not been subdued by the Republican Guard and they caused the death of and injuries to Navy and Police officers. The disproportion of the war potential employed is nevertheless inferred from the results of the action. The final demolition, after the surrender which occurred at 14:30 hours on the nineteenth, would not have a logical explanation and would, consequently, be unjustified. ... Amnesty International states it has compiled versions from survivors and has disseminated them in a document published in several languages, stating that alleged executions of surrendered rioters had occurred at El Frontón. One of the survivors of the riots informally reported the same to a third person who, upon being summoned by the Investigative Committee to ratify his version, refused to do so. The Military Jurisdiction should investigate these reports in depth. In the statement of the facts contained in the minority report of the investigative commission of Congress the following is stated: 15(D) Attention is called to the lack of interest for rescuing possible survivors after the demolition . . . 15(E) The subsequent appearance of a survivor on June 20 and four survivors on June 21 indicates that it would have been possible to rescue more inmates, had there been an interest in doing so . . . 16. The removal of debris in search of corpses took the Navy an excessively and inexplicably long period of time . . . In the chapter entitled "Previous Matters" which presents the conclusions of the same minority report, the following is established: 3. It has been shown that the action of the judicial and Public Ministry authorities was illegally impaired and limited . . . 4. It has been shown that the government, in failing to comply with its obligation to protect human life, gave orders which resulted in an unjustifiable number of deaths . . . a. The option adopted, to crush the riots by means of military force in the shortest and most critical time, meant placing the life of the hostages and inmates in serious and unnecessary danger . . . b. The military force used was disproportionate in relationship to the actual danger present, and no precautionary measures were put into effect to reduce the human cost of crushing the riot . . . 5. . . . At the El Frontón Correctional Island, the initial version concerning the operation has not satisfactorily explained either the goal of the operation or the fate of the survivors, which gives rise to the possibility that executions outside the judicial domain, similar to those at the Lurigancho correctional facility, may have taken place. Even if such executions did not take place, the fact alone of the demolition of the Blue Pavilion, whether intentional or not, constitutes a crime against life (2). Note (2) which is quoted at the end of the preceding paragraph reads as follows: