21 A) Scope of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State 1) Regarding the facts 135. In the public hearing held in El Salvador on June 26 and 27, 2006 (supra para. 93), the State mentioned that [t]he facts […] cannot be hidden, the pain cannot be hidden, […] those injured cannot be hidden, the pain of the victims’ next of kin cannot be hidden. In the response to the petition in this sense, the Peruvian state is acknowledging those facts due to the evidence of the same and because since they occurred […] they were subject to an ample diffusion by the media. […] We believe that in order to analyze the facts it is necessary to analyze the context in which they ocurred. […] For twenty years Peru lived an extremely serious situation of internal conflict. [… T]he facts of May 6 through 9[, 1992 …] were committed against inmates of a specific orientation. The acts of violence were directed against two pavilions, or mainly against one pavilion, pavilion 1 A and pavilion 4B, occupied at the time of the facts by inmates accused of crimes of terrorism linked to Peru’s communist party Sendero Luminoso[. … T]he act had a specific purpose: attack Sendero Luminoso. […] based on the government’s military strategy of that time it oriented its actions toward that party, toward that group, there was a logic of war [against] the adversary. 136. Likewise, in response to a question made by the Tribunal, the State clarified that it acknowledges only the facts from May 6 to 9, 1992, and not the ones from the dates after that. Next, the State expressed that “it also acknowledges” “the situations expressed in the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence presented by the common intervener,” understanding that it does so with regard to the facts of May 6 to 9, 1992. 137. In the brief of final arguments (supra para. 105) the State “reassert[ed] and ratif[ied] the arguments and positions expressed within the framework of the [mentioned] Public Hearing [before] the Court,” and reiterated that it acknowledges its partial responsibility in this case. Peru mentioned that “it acknowledges its responsibility in the facts occurred between May 6 t 9, 1992.” Likewise, it added that: [… e]ven though individual responsibilities will be determined within the Domestic venue, in the terms [o]f the process currently being followed before the Judicial Power […,] we cannot ignore the magnitude of the facts referred to in the present process and the responsibility of the Peruvian State in the same. It also asked the Court to take into consideration “the historical context within which these facts occurred, in contrast with the State’s current administration,” and indicated that “the facts object of the present process were part of the strategy of the government in office to confront, violating human rights, the internal conflict.” 2) Regarding the alleged victims and the rights claimed as violated 138. When expressing its partial acknowledgment of responsibility with regard to the facts, in the terms in which it was done in the public hearing and in its final written arguments (supra paras. 93 and 105), Peru did not make any express reference to the victims or the rights that the Inter-American Commission and the common intervener of the representatives claim were violated.