35 7. Luis F. Jiménez, eyewitness to the facts of May 199217 He was the attorney for the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights at the time of the facts. On May 6, 1992 he was contacted by a relative of one of the inmates, who asked him to come to the criminal center “as soon as possible, since an operative of combined forces of the Army and Police to transfer the inmates to a different criminal center had started, and it was considered by the next of kin as an excuse to carry out what they called a ‘genocide’.” On that same day the witness went to the criminal center along with a security official appointed by the State. He met with the Director of the criminal center, Colonel Gabino Cajahuanca, in the outsides of the center. The latter told the witness that “he feared a massacre” and requested that the Commission adopt measures. The colonel also informed him that he had been removed the power to make decisions, “since the control of the criminal center had been assumed by a special police force unit.” According to the information provided by different sources, the witness could prove that the prisoners had not carried out a riot, “instead it had been a violent unilateral action carried out by police forces.” On the night of May 7, 1992 he was informed by a group of relatives of the inmates, accompanied by their attorneys, that “the prisoners accepted their transfer under the condition that representatives of the Human Rights Commission of the OAS and the Red Cross be present.” On the next day this was communicated personally to the Secretary of Justice, but he never received a response from the latter. The highest governmental authorities were aware of the offer made by the prisoners in acceptance of their transfer. On May 9, 1992 he went to the criminal center in company of the President of the Episcopal Conference. He could notice that “[t]he bombing against the pavilion was really impressive.” He tried to get close to the door of the criminal center but the armed forces “fired dissuasive shots.” He also observed that there was uniformed personnel, which he considered were part of “combined Military and Police forces […, and there was also] helicopters over flying [, …] rifle shots[,] detonations of weapons of a large caliber [and] a large number of shielded vehicles.” He also heard invocations through megaphone offering to respect the life of those who surrendered, but immediately afterwards he heard gunshots that he assumed “were destined to eliminate those they had intended to.” After these events, the Peruvian authorities did not immediately supply a list of those injured, dead, and the survivors. Entrance to the criminal center Castro Castro was not permitted, but it was allowed at the prison of Santa Mónica, the morgue, and the Police Hospital. When he visited the prison of Santa Mónica, where some of the survivors of the facts were transferred, he observed that these women “were still dirty with the dust from the criminal center and splashed with blood.” Likewise, he was impressed with “the overcrowding of the inmates.” 17 In the President’s ruling of May 24, 2006 (supra para. 65) the object of this statement was delimited so that it would refer only “regarding the facts that occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in his condition of eyewitness of the facts of May 1992, pursuant to the terms established in the Whereas 37 of the […] Ruling.” According to that stated in said Rulin the witness should refer to the facts of which he had personal and direct knowledge.