from the blood of its victims piled up one on top of the other, from the brutalities prolonged in time, from the damages caused to the inmates’ eyes by the splinters (fragmentation weapons) and the gases, - of this entire massacre without pity, arises the human conscience declared and symbolized today in the monument “The Eye that Cries,"75 in acknowledgment of the suffering of the victims and as an expression of solidarity to them. Solidarity and, through the present Judgment of this Court, justice, finally triumphed over criminal victimization. Today “The Eye that Cries” defies the passing of time, or intends to do so, as a sign of regret for the eyes that burned or were perforated in the Prison of Castro Castro, and as a lesson that everyone must persevere in the search of their own redemption. Given the finite nature of existential time, there are those that seek their improvement through the expressions of the spirit. In the present case, “The Eye that Cries” proves it. (...)" (paras. 19-20) 109. In the present Judgment of Interpretation, the Court referred to the monument “The Eye that Cries”, in the framework of a precision it makes with regard to a nonpecuniary measure of reparation in benefit of the victims and their next of kin in the cas d'espèce (para. 57). In the period of time that has gone by between the previous Judgment on merits and reparations, and the present Judgment of Interpretation in the case of the Castro Castro Prison, an incident that constitutes, in my opinion, a reason for great concern occurred. 110. It is this incident, more than the Court’s consideration, what I allow myself to refer to in the following considerations; since I consider that it should not go unnoticed. In my present Concurring Opinion, I already referred to the historical passing from the destructive cycle of private vengeance to the advent of public justice, with the corresponding primacy of Law over brute force, - made endless in the trilogy of tragedies of The Oresteia by Aeschylus, in ancient Greece (cf. supra). It seems that not even this passing has always happened in a lineal manner, but instead through steps forward and back, characteristic of the sad human condition. 111. The mentioned incident – that promptly became of public and notorious knowledge – occurred on Sunday 07.23.2007, when a group of demonstrators of an unknown identity attacked the memorial “The Eye that Cries” in Lima, dedicated to the victims of the political repression and violence that flagellated the country between 1980 and 2000. The demonstrators, in an unpleasant act of vandalism, beat the monument, destroyed an important part of its central stone, took out several stones with the names of the victims, and broke part of them. It was an act of violence; this time directed toward the respect for the memory of those who lost their lives during the two-decade cycle of extreme violence that flagellated the country. Since the matter of the collective memory of all the victims of the Peruvian tragedy underlies the State’s present request for interpretation of the Judgment, I feel compelled to include in this Concurring Opinion my reflections regarding this incident. 112. The attackers of the memorial, not moved by the numerous fatal victims of violence from different origins, turned their hate against a memorial in respect to the memory of the victims. At the same time, it was an attack against the future (the search of peace through justice in Peru) and the past (the respect for the dead, the victims of violence and repression). Their act of vandalism promptly generated public . To which the Court itself made reference in the mentioned Judgment (paras. 496-497 and 506, and operative paragraph n. 15). 75