representatives, in their observations of 07.30.2008, asked the Court to dismiss the State’s brief of 07.23.2008 (para. 18). II. Preliminary Considerations Interpretation of the Judgment. on the Mentioned Request for 9. These were, in synthesis, the main arguments presented to the Court by those intervening in the present proceedigns of Interpretation of the Judgment. It is true that the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation (CVR) of Peru, in its extensive Final Report (2003), when referring to the factors that led to the generalized violence and the "triggering of the internal armed conflict,” held Sendero Luminoso accountable for “54% of the fatal victims” reported to it.15 On its part, the Inter-American Court proceeded naturally to its own determination of the facts in the present case of the Castro Castro Prison, based on the application presented to it. 10. With regard to the proven facts in the cas d'espèce, the Court mentioned, in its Judgment of 11.25.2006 that “as of the coup d’état of April 05, 1992 and in order to fight some subversive and terrorist groups, the State implemented in its prisons practices that were not compatible with the effective protection of the right to life and other rights, such as extrajudicial killings and cruel and inhuman treatments, as well as the disproportionate use of force in critical circumstances." (para. 197(9)). The Court turned to relevant parts (volumes VI-VII) of the Final Report (2003) of the CVR itself, for its ruling of the specific case, and also observed, with regard to the proven facts, that “The CVR received thousands of accusations regarding acts of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishments produced during the period between 1980 and 2000. In its final report it states that of 6,443 acts of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatments or punishments registered by said body, 74.90% corresponded to actions attributed to State officials or people that acted under its authorization or acquiescence, and the final report expressed that ‘the forceful disappearance of people was […] one of the main mechanisms of counter-subversive fighting employed by State agents, acquiring the characteristics of a systematic or generalized practice.’ ‘Of the total of victims reported to the CVR as executed or whose whereabouts continue to be unknown due to responsibility of State agents, 61% were victims of forced disappearances’." (para. 197(5)). 11. Even though the briefs submitted to the Court in the present proceedings of Interpretation of the Judgment (supra) have different positions with regard to the fact that it offers or not a response to the basic issue presented by the appellant State, all the briefs offered a response to this matter when they presented their points of view in this sense. It is a matter that, in my opinion, refers to the sense or scope of the Judgment on merits and reparations of the Court in the present case of the Castro Castro Prison. Said matter has been the object of careful attention, in different international juridical forums, by the contemporary international legal doctrine, and it should be clarified with the greatest detail and the most solid foundations by the Inter-American Court. . Commission of Truth and Reconciliation of Peru, Final Report, volume VIII, parts II-III, Lima, 2003, p. 355. 15 4