10 Besides, it must be pointed out, that the State is not only a party to the American Convention, but also to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, whereby, pursuant to Article IV, the State commits itself to punishing any act constituting forced disappearance. 43. Moreover, during the public hearing held by the Court in the instant case (supra para. 32), the State agent expressed “his grief to the next of kin of the alleged victims” and read an “official statement on behalf of the President of the Republic” in the following terms: The President of the Republic of Perú greets the Inter American Court of Human Rights, which has met today to try the case of La Cantuta. The State of Perú deeply regrets the fate of that group of Peruvians, nine students and a professor, and on stating its grief for the pain inflicted to their next of kin, it also wishes to ratify its commitment to comply with its international obligations. 44. Moreover, in the final oral and written arguments the State: reiterated […] that such acts and omissions constitute international wrongful acts that generate the international liability of the State. They are crimes according to domestic law, and international crimes that the State must punish; reiterated its admission of the facts and, as regards the unsettled issue, it shares the concern of the victims’ next of kin. . The State is determined to do justice. However, even though it admits the facts, the State disagrees with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) regarding some of the Commission´s claims pursuant to which the Commission expects that the Peruvian State be held internationally responsible for the violation of the right to fair trial and judicial protection on account of its conduct as from the end of year 2000 to the present time: and it also expects that the Court will declare that the Peruvian State has not adopted yet sufficient measures to annul the self-amnesty lawsMoreover, the existence of the CVR and its Final Report are based on the undeniable fact that Perú underwent a domestic armed conflict and that, in said backdrop, serious violations of human rights took place, which were attributed to the Peruvian State, among other participants in the conflict. Forced disappearances, extra-legal executions and tortures took place (General Conclusion 55) as part of said violations. La Cantuta, currently pending before a supra-national court, is one of those regrettable cases where bodily injuries were inflicted to the victims. Since the controversy over the alleged acts has been settled, the State requests the Honorable Court to declare that the case limited to the aspects or consequences resulting from those acts and specified in several claims of the [Commission] and of the representatives of the alleged victims […]. 45. In the final oral and written arguments, the Commission stated, inter alia, that: a) the State´s admission of the acts allows to conclude that the controversy regarding the arbitrary detention, humiliating, cruel or inhuman treatment and the subsequent forced disappearance or extra-legal execution of the professor and nine students, victims in the instant case, has finished. Likewise, the Commission considers that the dispute regarding the failure to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation, together with the acts aimed at concealing the truth and sheltering the persons responsible for such wrongful actions up to the end of the year 2000 with the transition between the governments of Alberto Fujimori and Valentín Paniagua, has ended. The Commission also states its satisfaction for the State´s acquiescence of international responsibility regarding the breach of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to article 1(1) thereof, on account of the facts specified in the application.[…] The Commission appreciates the significance of said acknowledgement and considers it is a positive step toward the vindication of the victims’ memory