4 Rules of Procedure, request the evidence or carry out the investigations necessary to prove the veracity of the facts” mentioned in the request of the measures. 14. On June 5, 1997 Mr. Curtis Doebbler, in representation of Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta, presented a petition before the Commission, which was identified under number 11,769. Said petition referred, inter alia, to the events of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison as of May 6, 1992, as well as to the “torture”, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment to which the alleged victims in this case were allegedly submitted to during the “attack” to the mentioned criminal center and after the same. 15. On June 29, 2000, case 11,769 (supra para. 14) was broken down into two case files: 11,769-A and 11,769-B, in application of that established in Article 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission in force at that time. Case file 11,769-B referred to “the facts claimed […] in relation to the events occurred in the prison Castro Castro, of Lima, in May 199[2],” and 11,769-A to the “arrest, trial, and other facts […] referring directly and personally to [Mrs.] Mónica Feria Tinta.” 16. On June 29, 2000 case 11,769-B (supra para. 15) was joined with the case identified as 11,015 (supra para.6) for its joint processing. 17. On March 5, 2001 the Commission approved Report Nº 43/01, through which it declared the admissibility of the case. On March 21, 2001 the Commission put itself at the order of the parties with the purpose of reaching an amicable solution. 18. On March 16, 2001 the State presented a report, through which it mentioned the name of the alleged victims “that died during the events […] of May 6 to 10, 1992.” 19. On April 2, 2001 Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta presented observations to the Report of admissibility of the case (supra para. 17). Among its observations she stated, inter alia, that she thought it was important to point out that it “was an attack originally directed against the female prisoners[, …] among which there were pregnant women,” and that “in the claim presented […] it was specif[ied] that at the head of those directly responsible for the facts was […] Alberto Fujimori Fujimori[,] who ordered the attack and the extrajudicial killings of prisoners between May 6 [and] 9[,] as well as the regimen applied to the survivors after the massacre.” 20. On April 18, 2001 Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta informed the Commission that she was not interested in proceeding with an amicable solution (supra para. 17). On April 23, 2001 the State presented a report, through which it expressed that “it did not wish to submit itself […] to the procedure of amicable solution.” (supra para. 17). 21. On April 24, 2001 the Commission requested to the petitioners and the State that they present “their arguments and evidence regarding the merits of the case” due to the “controversy between the parties as to the facts claimed.” It also requested that the State present: “[t]he name and explanation of the specific circumstances in which the people die[d…] on May 1992 in the Criminal Center Castro Castro, including the forensic expert exams performed [… and] the corresponding death certificates;” “[t]he name [and] the type of injuries, […] the circumstances […] under which said injuries were caused, […] and the forensic expert exams performed [in this sense]; and “[i]nformation on the administrative and judicial investigations carried out regarding the facts occurred in May 1992 in