14 larger than the Blue Pavilion, the removal and identification of the bodies was done in two or three weeks; that if he had been summoned to identify the bodies at "El Frontón", he would have first gathered all the data about the victims and then would have photographed each body at the place where it had been found; that even seven months after the incident it would have been possible to identify more than 90 per cent of the bodies, and that even now this would be possible by gathering all the data on fingerprints and tooth prints and, in some cases by exhuming the bodies. VI 58. In the concluding arguments of September 10, 1993, the Commission prepared its analysis of the evidence and requested: 1. By virtue of the de facto and de jure reasons previously pointed out, the Commission asks the Honorable Court to pass judgment in the instant case, declaring: a. That Víctor Neira-Alegría, Edgar Zenteno-Escobar, and William Zenteno-Escobar were disappeared between June 18 and 19, 1986, by agents of the Peruvian State during a military operation controlled and directed by the Navy of Peru at the correctional establishment of El Frontón. b. That, as a consequence thereof, the Peruvian State has violated, to the detriment of the victims, the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty and the right to judicial protection recognized in Articles 4, 5, 7, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. That the Peruvian State has likewise violated the deadlines established for cases of suspension of guarantees, as provided for in Article 27 of the Convention. All of the preceding stands in relationship to the failure to comply with the obligation to respect and assure the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention, to which Peru is a party. 2. That in consequence, the Court order the Peruvian State to: a. Carry out an exhaustive investigation of the events that occurred on June 18 and 19, 1986 at the correctional establishment of El Frontón, in order to identify those responsible for the violations of human rights committed to the detriment of Víctor Neira-Alegría, Edgar Zenteno-Escobar, and William Zenteno-Escobar; punish the perpetrators; and inform the victims' next of kin of the whereabouts of those who have disappeared. them. b. Pay pecuniary compensation to the victims' next of kin for the damages inflicted upon c. Take charge of the payment of court costs and attorneys' fees, including professional fees of the Commission's legal consultants who have participated in the handling of these cases, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and in conformity with the statement of account the parties must submit to the Honorable Court for approval. In this respect the Commission requests that the Court, at the applicable procedural stage, open a special proceeding to itemize the expenditures that the processing of the instant case has warranted . . . 59. In the final argument of September 10, 1993, the Government prepared its analysis of the evidence and concluded: 4.1. The complaint has not been duly proven with respect to the allegation that the Peruvian State violated the commitments pledged to under the American Convention on Human Rights, particularly Articles 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 25, on the occasion of the crushing of the riots led by inmates charged with the crime of terrorism at the "El Frontón" correctional island on June 18 and 19, 1986 and the following days. 4.2. The Government of Peru has complied with its obligations to respect the rights and liberties recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, and, consequently, the allegation of the complaint which indicates failure to comply with Article 1 of said inter-American legal instrument must be declared groundless. To the extent that the violation of the precepts specified in the complaint are not ascertained, it follows that there has not been failure to comply with Article 1 of the American Convention, in light of the interpretation of the Inter-American Court contained in the judgments of July 29, 1988 (paras. 161 to 167) and January 20, 1989 (paras. 170 to 176).