“a State has the right and the duty to guarantee its own security, although it must always exercise that right and duty within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person. Obviously, nothing justifies terrorist violence –no matter who the perpetrators- that is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole. Such violence warrants the most vigorous condemnation.”8 43. Finally, the Tribunal is not unaware of the fact that the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, with regard to the attribution of responsibility in the conflict lived in Peru, concluded that Sendero Luminoso “was the main perpetrator of crimes and violations of human rights using as the measurement for this the number of people dead and missing. It was responsible for 54 per cent of the fatal victims [reported to said Commission].”9 * * * Three measures of non-repetition 44. Regarding the State’s considerations in its request for interpretation, related to the three measures of non-repetition ordered by the Court in the Judgment (supra para. 29, subparagraphs a, b, and c), referred to the obligation to investigate, the public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, and the diffusion of the Judgment, this Tribunal considers it appropriate to make the following considerations. 45. In relation to paragraph 440 of the Judgment the State asked about “the viability of referring to past acts of grave violation to human rights perpetrated by the members of [Sendero Luminoso,] linked or as a background to the events of May 1992.” 46. The Court warns that the paragraph referred to by the State is located in Chapter XVI on Reparations of the Judgment where the obligation to criminally investigate the facts that led to the violations of the present case and identify, prosecute, and, in its case, punish those responsible is established, among others. 47. The Court has reiterated in several cases that the lack in its totality of investigation, prosecution, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention is considered impunity.10 Cfr. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 89; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 91. 8 9 Cfr. Final Report of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation, CVR, issued on August 27, 2003 in the city of Lima, Peru; Volume VIII, General Conclusion 13, page 355 (Appendix E to the brief of the State’s request for interpretation of the judgment, dossier of interpretation of the judgment, folio 138). Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 153; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 405. 10 13