matters presented by the State and later those submitted to the consideration of the Tribunal by the representatives. IV PROVEN FACTS AND COMPLIANCE OF CERTAIN MEASURES OF REPARATION ORDERED IN THE JUDGMENT (THE STATE’S REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION) The State’s Request for Interpretation 28. In its request for interpretation the State indicated that two of the facts proven in the Judgment of this Tribunal, included in paragraphs 197(1) and 197(5), should be clarified since they “reflect a situation that does not coincide with the reality of the violent actions lived by Peru in the hands of [Sendero Luminoso],” and that said facts “have their logical corollary in Operative Paragraphs” and “they derive, through a certain intrinsic logic, in a determined modality of compliance of the Judgment.” Regarding the fact proven in paragraph 197(1), which establishes that there was in Peru a conflict between “armed groups and agents of the police and military forces,” the State requests that the reference to “armed groups” be clarified, since the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation of Peru (CVR) considered Sendero Luminoso a “subversive terrorist movement responsible for serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity.” Regarding the fact proven in paragraph 197(5), which refers to complaints received and information of the CVR on violations to human rights in Peru, the State requests that the “predominant nature of acts of violence and violation of human rights perpetrated by [Sendero Luminoso]” be clarified. 29. In what refers to compliance of the three non-repetition measures ordered in the Judgment, the State mentioned: a) regarding paragraph 440 of the Judgment, which establishes the obligation to “fight [the] situation of impunity and the importance of informing the victims and their next of kin of the truth of the facts in the present case,” the State asks about “the possibility to refer to past acts of serious violations to human rights perpetrated by members of [Sendero Luminoso,] related to or as a background to the facts of May 1992;” b) regarding the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, it requested that it be clarified if it implies “distinguishing throughout the course of the act itself, a respectful and reflexive mention of the juridical condition of the victims at the time of the facts,” whether they are being prosecuted or have been sentenced for crimes related to terrorism. This, according to the State, based on the fact that this case differs from others “in the sense that the victims were not deprived of their freedom in a prison or had never committed acts classified as a crime against public tranquility – specifically, terrorism.” That request for 8