24 Commission, admitted to having taken part in the kidnapping and deprivation of liberty prior to the death of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz.68 95. In support of its claims, the State also invoked the majority report of the “Commission to investigate the murders of the deputies, Heriberto Arroyo Mio and Pablo Li Ormeño, and the terrorist groups that use the name of a martyr.” The majority report of this congressional commission indicated that two university students were detained and an alleged assassination plan that mentioned Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní was discovered on them. This plan described the steps to be taken to end his life and the support necessary to carry out the act, which envisioned his execution in a public place. For its part, the minority report maintained that “the existence has been proved […] of an organization that carries out activities characterized by their terrorist rather than subversive nature, which claims to have executed a considerable number of criminal attacks under the name of the ‘Rodrigo Franco Democratic Commando” and that “there is significant evidence connecting this organization to individuals invested with public authority.”69 96. The Court takes into consideration the fact that those two students were subjected to a preliminary investigation for crimes of terrorism and one of them was also charged with crimes against the public trust and the State, though both were absolved of the terrorism charges (supra para. 75). The Court observes that this preliminary investigation was not directly related to the investigation into the deprivation of life of Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. 97. Finally, the Court underscores that, in support of its claims, the State provided an expert report prepared by the Specialized Forensic Team of the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Attorney General’s Office in August 2006, which concludes by stating that “[a]ll the elements collected to date point to the fact that the responsibility for these deaths can be attributed to some type of organization linked to the State apparatus at the time of the events.”70 98. The Court observes that, 18 years after the events occurred, the State has not expedited judicial proceedings that clearly determine the facts and responsibilities, and it has submitted different hypotheses to the Court regarding the perpetrators of the acts. The State utilizes, inter alia, two congressional reports and various police documents to allege attribution of the acts to non-State agents. As previously noted (supra paras. 75 and 96), the indictment that, among other elements, served as a basis for the hypothesis in these congressional reports, concluded in a judicial decision absolving the two students of the charges, inter alia, of terrorism. The hypothesis proposed in the police reports culminated in the filing of the proceedings ordered by the Attorney General’s Office. To the contrary, the attribution of responsibility for the facts to State agents is included in official documents such as the majority report of the parliamentary commission known as the “Herrera Commission”, the expert report of the Forensic Medicine Institute and, in particular, the CVR, whose report has the backing of the Peruvian public authorities (supra paras. 91, 93 and 97) and has not been invalidated in court. Consequently, considering the conclusions of 68 Cf. Congress of the Republic, Commission to investigate the cases of corruption of the 1990-2000 decade, Report: Agustín Mantilla and his connection to the self-called Rodrigo Franco Democratic Commando – majority report (file of helpful evidence submitted by the State on June 8, 2007, page 1341). 69 Cf. Majority and minority reports of the Commission to investigate the murder of the deputies, Eriberto Arroyo Mío and Pablo Li Ormeño and the terrorist groups that use the name of a martyr (file of helpful evidence submitted by the State on June 8, 2007, pages 1176 to 1179 and 1306). 70 Cf. Expert report prepared by the Specialized Forensic Team of the Forensic Medicine Institute of the Attorney General’s Office in August 2006, chapter corresponding to the “Socio-anthropological Investigation”, submitted by the State on January 23, 2007, during the public hearing held before the Court (file of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, page 620).