27 1) Facts occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992: differences in the description and classification of the same by the Commission and the common intervener 164. It has been clearly established that Peru acknowledges the facts occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992 presented in the Commission’s application and that it also expressed that “it acknowledged” “the situations expressed in the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence presented by the common intervener.” (supra para. 150). However, the Commission and the intervener did not coincide in the description and classification of some of the facts that occurred in said period. 165. In some cases the difference obeys to the fact that the intervener explains the fact claimed by the Commission in a more ample manner. In this sense there is no problem since, according to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the intervener may explain or clarify the facts presented in the application (supra para. 162). Besides, Peru acknowledged said facts (supra para. 150). 166. However, there are other facts in which there is a contradiction between the Commission’s arguments and the intervener’s position and it is contradictory to adopt both versions of the fact. These are, basically, the facts regarding the existence of a riot or a resistance of the inmates prior to “Operative Transfer 1” in the early morning of May 6, 1992, as well as the possession and employment of weapons by the inmates. The different classification made by the parties regarding these facts is due mainly to the analysis and assessment they have made of the evidence. The Tribunal will determine the facts based on the evidence presented in this process, applying the rules of competent analysis. 2) Facts occurred after May 9 1992: facts not included in the application, which are object of this case 167. In its application the Commission presented several facts that allegedly occurred after May 9, 1992, date on which the so-called “Operative Transfer 1” concluded. However, the Court has proven that in her brief of pleadings and motions the common intervener presented more facts than those included in the Commission’s application, with regard to what is claimed happened after that date. Likewise, in its final arguments the Commission included as facts of this case some of the factual situations presented by the common intervener. 168. Since in the present case the lack of inclusion of those facts was observed by the common intervener and that from the appendixes to the petition facts that were not expressly included in the same can be concluded, the Tribunal will proceed to rule on this factual matter. 169. Before this situation and in compliance with the responsibilities that correspond to it regarding the protection of human rights, the Tribunal will use its power to make its own determination of the facts of the case9 that allegedly occurred after May 9, 1992 (supra para. 162) and will determine in the chapter of Facts Proven those that are object of this case. For this, the Court will take into account the facts described by the Commission in its application and those that arise from the evidence provided as appendixes to the same. Besides, the Tribunal has made 9 Cfr. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 192; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 55; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, para. 59.