Court states in its judgment of interpretation that “the suffering caused to Peruvian society is widely and publicly known.” Now, this natural receipt of the data that informs of or surrounds the judicial cases could not modify the court’s jurisdiction, take away or add powers that have not been expressly granted, or alter the course of its institutional duty. If it did, it would compromise its independence, impartiality, and jurisdiction. In synthesis, it would fail to comply with its obligation. 6. I am aware of the matters present in the origin of the facts analyzed in the judgment on merits, as well as those that arise from the interpretation. These are grave problems that have touched the society. Regarding the same there are different and even opposed opinions. They deserve a deep consideration and specific decision, which must be adopted within the channels of the powers and responsibilities of the instances called upon to resolve them. The international human rights jurisdiction intervenes precisely in the terms of its powers and responsibilities, as well as the domestic one within the realm of its own jurisdiction. None of them could act differently. 7. The Court’s attention has been brought to the circumstances that prevailed when the facts subject to trial in the international instance occurred. The corresponding arguments point out the characteristics of the behavior assumed by people that would later appear as victims in the international trial, and they put emphasis on the suffering of many citizens that faced the grave consequences of the violence. They request for the latter the treatment of victims, especially when dealing with innocent people that suffered the effects of the conflict and who deserve both solidarity and esteem. 8. Whoever suffers the effects of an unfair behavior, whichever its origin, is a victim of an abuse that must be punished. There are legal proceedings for this, both in the national and international scene, through processes followed according to the corresponding regulations. As much can be said about the employment of adequate measures to face threats or acts of violence, with legal instruments and proceedings and within the juridical system characteristic of a democratic society. 9. On several opportunities, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued rulings regarding the State’s obligation to protect the society from crime. The precedents in advisory opinions and judgments in cases are many. It is obvious that the State must provide that protection and for this it must have ideal police and criminal justice resources. Providing security to people is a “foundational reason” of the State. It comes to explain and justify the creation itself of a political society. 10. The Inter-American Court is not unaware of this obligation of the public power nor has it doubted the appropriateness –even more so: the absolute need—that it effectively and energetically assume it, pursuant to the regulations and procedures characteristic of the rule of law. The same determination is on the record in the InterAmerican corpus juris. Proof of this can be found, for example, in the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. 11. Having established the aforementioned, which constitutes a premise for the examination and understanding of the rulings of the Court, we must remember the scope of the rights included in the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the specific jurisdiction the States have granted this tribunal, with the exclusion of any other; a jurisdiction that binds the actions and decisions of the Court and its members. 2