13 …The Inter-American system has played a fundamental role in achieving democracy in Peru. The Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights led the international community in condemning the practices of horror, injustice and impunity that occurred under the Fujimori Government. Those of us present at this hearing, recognize the desire of the next of kin and of the Peruvian human rights community to obtain justice and truth in that country. This desire is shared by the whole inter-American system and, in this respect, we would like ... to request the Honorable Court that ... by virtue of the State’s acquiescence, it should not only establish the specific violations of the articles of the Convention in which the State incurred ..., but also, in the operative paragraphs of the judgment, specifically establish the need to clarify the events, so as to protect the right to truth, the need to investigate and punish those responsible, ... the incompatibility of amnesty laws with the provisions of the American Convention, and ... the obligation of the State to annul amnesty laws. * * * The considerations of the Court 37. Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence in the claims of the party that has brought the case, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions of the latter and the representatives of the victims or their next of kin, whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 38. Based on the statements of the parties at the public hearing of March 14, 2001, and in view of the acquiescence to the facts and the recognition of international responsibility by Peru, the Court considers that the dispute between the State and the Commission has ceased with regard to the facts that gave rise to the instant case.2 39. Consequently, the Court considers that the facts referred to in paragraph 2 of this judgment have been admitted. The Court also considers that, as the State has expressly recognized, it incurred international responsibility for violating Article 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention with regard to 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, and for violating Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) with regard to Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez. In addition, the State is responsible for violating Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention as a result of the promulgation and application of Amnesty Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492. Finally, the State is responsible for failing to comply with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on Human Rights as a result of the promulgation and application of Amnesty Laws No. 2 Cfr. Trujillo Oroza case. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 40; El Caracazo case. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 41; Benavides Cevallos case. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 42; Garrido and Baigorria case. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26, para. 27; El Amparo case. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19, para. 20; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 23.