9 Reconciliation Commission (CVR) referred to this case as “Extrajudicial Executions in Santa Barbara,” a fact that was taken into account in the decision of the National Criminal Chamber and should have been considered by the Commission and the representatives. Furthermore, it argued that the alleged theft of property and burning of houses would be outside the factual framework of the case. 17. Without prejudice to the foregoing, Peru indicated that “the allusion [in the acknowledgement of responsibility made before the Commission] to other international instruments that are not part of the inter-American system was only referential […], so that these instruments cannot be applied directly in the present case, noting […] that the Court […] does not have jurisdiction to declare the violation of provisions contained in those treaties” 4. 18. In addition, the State pointed out that the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Report did not allege the violation of Article 11 of the Convention, as argued by the representatives, so that this “would mean extending the group of rights that the [Commission] understands were affected by the Peruvian State.” 5 19. In view of the foregoing, Peru asked the Court to ��consider the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in the terms mentioned above, and in relation to the violation of the right to life, the right to personal integrity, the right to personal liberty and the rights of the child, established in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the American Convention.” According to the State, the foregoing “should be strictly differentiated from the enforceability of the attribution of international responsibility to the Peruvian State for the events that occurred and for which the aforementioned violations have been recognized [,] since [for the State] the competent authorities of the domestic administration of justice did not fail in their duty to investigate and prosecute the accused (beyond the shortcomings alleged by the [Commission] and the representatives of the alleged victims) related to the obligation to guarantee the aforementioned rights, and is aware of the duty to provide reparation arising from the violations.” At the public hearing, Peru pointed out that “the acknowledgement, precisely linked to the points raised by the State before the Inter-American Commission, is in line with Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention.” 20. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that, despite its acknowledgement of the violation of rights made before the Commission and subsequently confirmed by the domestic courts, it is not appropriate for the Court to determine and declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights contained in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the Convention, based on the unrestricted respect for the principle of subsidiarity or complementarity in the interAmerican system. According to Peru, at the time of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility before the Commission, a final judicial ruling on the facts had not been issued. However, all this had already been done through the judgment of the National Criminal Chamber of February 9, 2012 and the Final Judgment (ejecutoria suprema) of May 29, 2013. Based on this, it asked the Court not to rule on the violations of the aforementioned rights. It also stated that the judgments issued by the Peruvian Judiciary constitute a measure of reparation for the victims in the case. 21. In its Report on Admissibility and Merits, the Commission noted that in the processing of the case before it, the State initially denied the facts and, subsequently, in 2005, admitted that “[t]he acts perpetrated in the community of Santa Bárbara constitute a violation of the right 4 Peru noted that the considerations of rights in the Commission’s Report on Admissibility and Merits, alludes to Article 13 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions on the principle of civil immunity, and that “it is not acceptable that the [Commission] seeks to apply this instrument immediately.” 5 It also indicated that the precedent cited by the representatives refers to a case of forced disappearance of minors, a situation that “is not applicable in this specific case.” Regarding the “aggravated responsibility” alleged by the representatives, the State rejected such claim.