8 11. Amicus curiae. On January 30, 2015, The John Marshall Law School International Human Rights Clinic submitted an amicus curiae 3 brief. 12. Final written arguments and observations. On March 2, 2015, the State, the representatives and the Commission submitted their final written arguments and observations, respectively. In addition, the State and the representatives submitted various documents together with their briefs. On April 6, 2015, the State submitted its observations on the documents presented with the final written arguments of the representatives. The representatives did not submit observations. On April 13, 2015, and after an extension was granted, the Commission submitted its observations on the annexes to the final arguments. 13. Helpful evidence. On February 5, 2015, following the instructions of the President of the Court and pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the State was asked to submit documentation as helpful evidence. In a communication dated March 2, 2015, the State submitted the documentation requested. On April 13, 2015, and after an extension was granted, the Commission submitted its observations on the helpful evidence. The representatives did not submit observations. 14. Deliberation of the instant case. The Court began deliberation of this judgment on August 31, 2015. III JURISDICTION 15. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV “RECOGNITION OF THE VIOLATION OF RIGHTS BY THE PERUVIAN STATE” AND LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE FACTS A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 16. The State indicated that before the Inter-American Commission it affirmed that “there was a violation of rights; specifically, of the right to life, the right to personal integrity and the right to personal liberty established in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention,” to the detriment of fifteen people, including seven children. It also held that, “insofar as there were minors among the persons who were executed and [...] that they were not provided with the necessary special protection [,] […] the provisions of Article 19 of the Convention [...] on the rights of the child are consequently applicable.” In this regard, it referred in detail to the facts considered proven in the judgment of the National Criminal Chamber of February 9, 2012, and in the final judgment (ejecutoría suprema) of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 29, 2013, which the judiciary characterized as aggravated homicide with ferocity and premeditation and as crimes against humanity for the purpose of substantiating their imprescriptible nature, and not as forced disappearance. Accordingly, the State asked the Court to consider the instant case under the legal classification of extrajudicial execution and not as forced disappearance. In addition, it argued that the representatives themselves had endorsed this classification in the aforementioned criminal proceedings. It also pointed out that the Final Report of the Truth and Association, and c) for the State: Luis Alberto Huerta Guerrero, Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor and Principal Agent; Sofía Janett Donaires Vega and Doris Margarita Yalle Jorges, lawyers of the Office of the Specialized Supranational Public Prosecutor as Alternate Agents. 3 This brief was submitted by Steven D. Schwinn, Co-director of said Clinic.