11 The Government [of Peru] faces an extremely complex human rights agenda[; as part of this] re-establishing and normalizing its relations with the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been and will be an essential priority... . … [T]he State of Peru.... formulated an acquiescence in a communication of February 19, in which it recognized its international responsibility for the events that occurred on November 3, 1991… …[T]he Government’s strategy in the area of human rights is based on recognizing responsibilities, but, above all, on proposing integrated procedures for attending to the victims based on three fundamental elements: the right to truth, the right to justice and the right to obtain fair reparation. … [With regard to the] Barrios Altos case[, …] substantial measures have been taken to ensure that criminal justice will make a prompt decision on this case. However, we are faced with .... an obstacle, ... we refer to the amnesty laws. The amnesty laws ... directly entailed a violation of the right of all victims to obtain not only justice but also truth. … Consequently, the Government of Peru has suggested to the original petitioners, that is, the National Human Rights Coordinator, the possibility of advancing with friendly settlements, which entail effective solutions to this procedural obstacle... … The State proposed to the petitioners the signature of a framework agreement on friendly settlement in the Barrios Altos case. The framework agreement proposed the explicit recognition of international responsibility concerning certain articles of the American Convention. In this respect, it was proposed to put in writing, in an agreement signed by the Commission, the State and the petitioners, that the State recognized its international responsibility for the violation of the right to life embodied in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, because of the deaths of Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto Díaz Astovilca, Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja, Filomeno León León, Máximo León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel Ríos Rojas, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar Mender Sifuentes Nuñez and Benedicta Yanque Churo. The State also proposed to recognize its international responsibility for the violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights in this framework agreement, because of the serious injuries to Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez. Lastly, the State would recognize its international responsibility for the violation of the right to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, because it had failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the facts and had not duly punished those responsible for the crimes against the above-mentioned persons.... Based on this recognition of responsibilities ... it suggested that the parties would inform the Court of their willingness to initiate a direct discussion in order to reach an agreement on a friendly settlement, which would seek to satisfy the claims for reparations. This agreement would evidently be submitted to the Honorable Court for official approval, as mandated in the Convention and the Court’s Rules of Procedure. ... Furthermore, the State proposed a preliminary agenda based on three points of substance: identification of mechanisms to fully clarify the facts on which the petition was based, including identification of the masterminds and perpetrators of the crime, the viability of criminal and administrative punishments for all those found responsible, and specific proposals and agreements on matters relating to reparations. … To this end, the State proposed that the parties should request the Inter-American Court to deliver the judgment on merits immediately, establishing the international responsibility as determined by the Court and taking into account the brief on acquiescence that had been submitted. It also proposed that the parties should suggest to the Court that it suspend its decision on the start of the reparations procedure, for a period that the parties themselves would establish and that the Court considered acceptable. Once this period had expired, and if agreement had not been reached, the parties would commit themselves to request the corresponding judgment to be delivered, and also to comply with it and execute it in its entirety.