22 139. Previously, in the response to the petition and the observations to the brief of pleadings and motions, Peru stated, with regard to the victims, that […] regarding the citizens that died and were injured during the events, […] their characteristics and circumstances of identification must be based mainly on the judicial actions currently in process and that will be delimited in the judgment that will be issued by the Judicial Power. 140. Similarly, in the response to the petition Peru accepted that the Court “conclude and declare” that “the State is partially responsible for”: i. […] the deaths caused during the execution of Transfer Operative I, in the terms that the process currently before the Judicial Power for the facts charged, will in a timely and impartial manner declare and punish; since from the analysis of the facts there are innumerable situations that must be clarified with regard to the precise circumstances of the deaths. ii. […] those injured and mistreated during the execution […] of Transfer Operative I, in the terms that the process currently before the Judicial Power for the facts charged, will in a timely and impartial manner declare and punish; since from the analysis of the facts there are innumerable situations that must be clarified with regard to the precise circumstances of those facts. iii. […] not respecting the right to a fair trial and judicial protection of the victims and their next of kin, while there was a Judicial Power that covered up the violations to human rights caused by the governmental administration of Alberto Fujimori. However, given the current existence of an ongoing independent and impartial judicial process, the violation has stopped and thus it was not completed and the rights have been restored and are being fully exercised by the victims and their next of kin. […] 141. Besides, in said response to the petition the State mentioned that: it accepts the non-compliance of the general obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention […]. However, it accepts a partial responsibility in the violations of the right to life, humane treatment, as long as the Judicial Power of Peru does not issue a ruling regarding the historical detailed truth of the events occurred between May 6 to 9, 1992. 3) Regarding the requests for reparations and costs 142. In its response to the petition, Peru indicated that “[i]n relation [to] the reparations that derive from this partial acknowledgment of responsibility, […] it accepts the publication of the judgment issued in a newspaper of national circulation,” and it stated “its objection to the symbolic measure of placing a commemorative plaque in the criminal center ‘Castro Castro’, since there is already a monument in reminder of all the victims of the armed conflict and since the mentioned criminal center is actually in operation with the presence of inmates that are both organized and active members of the Communist Party of Peru- Sendero Luminoso and a measure of this type would both affect the internal security of the criminal center and the measures destined to the reconciliation of Peruvians.” It also indicated that “[i]n what refers to the monetary reparations that may result from the determination of responsibilities, the State proposes to determine the amounts according to policies that are being implemented by the State or that are going to be implemented, either by legislative and/ or administrative proceedings, according to experiences that may have occurred in other cases discussed before the InterAmerican System, and as an effect of the State’s acknowledgment of its international commitments.”