depend on the previous behavior of the affected party,” and they stated that what occurred in the Castro Castro Prison “was a crime committed by state agents,” in which “41 people detained in the mentioned prison were deliberately deprived of their life, also violating other fundamental rights of the surviving inmates." (paras. 5-6) 7. Immediately, the IDL and CNDH asked the Court to consider, in its Judgment of Interpretation, "the suffering and grave social, economic, and political problems Sendero Luminoso caused Peru. We believe this could contribute to a better understanding, without taking passionate positions, by the Peruvian society of the transcendental role the Inter-American Court fulfills in the defense of human rights throughout the region (...). (...) Every State has the duty to guarantee that all the measures adopted to fight terrorism adjust to their obligations contracted by virtue of International Law, specially the regulations on human rights, Refugee Law, and Humanitarian International Law. (...) [According to the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation] Sendero Luminoso caused 54% of the victims of the armed conflict, being the poor and defenseless the most affected populations. (…) This was one of the excuses – even though not the only one, in fact – based on which the Peruvian State reacted in an abusive and extreme manner and therefore increased the number of victims of grave violations of human rights. (...) The distinguished Court could ‘exercise a narrative duty’ (…), enriching its analysis on the historical context of the internal armed conflict lived in Peru (...). This would not be the first time that the honorable Court has expanded its analysis of historical context (…). In the case of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (2003), a brief analysis of the social context lived by Guatemala at the time in which the regretful murder of the investigator and sociologist Myran Mack Chang occurred was carried out." (paras. 7, 14(21-22), and 26-27) 3. New Briefs Presented by the Parties. 8. More recently, the State presented new briefs, on 02.26.2008, regarding the beneficiaries of reparations based on the Judgment on merits and reparations in the cas d'espèce and regarding the monument “The Eye that Cries”, and on 07.23.2008, with additional data to its request for interpretation.12 The Legal representative and common intervener of the victims presented, in her brief of 03.26.2008 (received in the Court on 04.03.2008), arguments contrary to those of the State on these matters,13 and referred to the Judgment on merits and reparations of the Court as “a victory of reason and the rule of law."14 As stated in the present Judgment, the victims’ . Summarized in paragraphs 12 and 16 of the present Judgment. . Summarized in paragraph 13 of the present Judgment. . Page 7 of the brief. 12 13 14 3