to hide the facts occurred and their magnitude.” It then stated that “the conditions not only of lack of control but also the levels of resistance that very probably were present (in the Prison, caused) the unmeasured response of the state agents.” 18. In the public hearing on this case, the State’s representative observed that “in the brief of the response to the application, the Peruvian State is already acknowledging those facts based on the evidence of the same and because as of the moment they occurred (…) they were subject to a wide diffusion in the media.” In the final written arguments, the State reiterated the acknowledgment of its partial responsibility “for the facts occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992.” It added that “the facts subject of the present process were part of the strategy of the government in office to face, violating human rights, the internal conflict.” Those expressions, quoted, are of the State, not the Court. 19. In all the cases –which are more numerous everyday—in which a State admits facts, it accepts claims, and acknowledges international responsibility, the Court has pointed out that this attitude, ethically and legally plausible, contributes to the strengthening of the human rights protection system and offers an important service to the administration of international justice. In this sense, the tribunal received and assessed the acknowledgment made by the State, in the terms exposed and confirmed by it. 21. In its request for interpretation, the State requested a ruling from the Court regarding the responsibility of non-state groups for the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity. Therefore, it invokes the “systematic, dynamic, and evolving nature of international human rights law.” Of course, this is not a matter of interpretation of the judgment on merits, in the strict sense, and that latter has not referred to this matter because it is not within the contentious jurisdiction exercised by the Court in hearing and solving the case of the Castro Castro Prison. Evidently, whoever incurs in crimes that imply a violation of human rights, must respond for its behavior and receive the corresponding punishments. In what refers to the case that occupies us, the matter in question is not that of the criminal responsibility of people who violated criminal law, but the definition of the body called upon to hear of these violations and apply the corresponding punishment. 22. On the other hand, the State itself suggested the analysis of this matter through an advisory opinion, since it expressly invokes Article 64 of the American Convention. This is the regulatory framework of advisory opinions, not of contentious cases. We are now before a matter presented, dealt with, and solved though a contentious procedure. The Court cannot modify the matters subject to its knowledge, the procedure through which it acts, and the nature of its decisions. The assertion –that was not made and that could be presented by the State or the Inter-American Commission, among other subjects with legal standing for it-would be different with regard to the interpretation, in its case, of a treaty on human rights applicable to American countries. 23. It is also necessary to take into account that the Court must limit itself to the facts invoked in the application presented by the Inter-American Commission. It is not authorized to include, motu proprio, other facts and carry out the examination of responsibilities different to those that may correspond to the respondent State. If it were to do so, it would vary the subjective and material scope of its jurisdiction, without a regulatory foundation to do so. With regard to all other aspects, the court’s jurisprudence has constantly reiterated that the only facts to which a case and the judgment may refer are those included in the application: the contentious jurisdiction has this object and this limitation. 24. I move on to another aspect of the request for interpretation, which also