23 143. In this regard, in the public hearing (supra para. 93) Peru stated that “in coherence with this policy of acknowledgment of the facts and seeking a reconciliation” it will start the corresponding consultations in order to promote an agreement for an amicable solution. Likewise, it referred to the comprehensive plan of reparations recommended by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, as well as to Law Nº 28592 on the reparations for victims of the internal armed conflict. 144. Finally, in the State’s brief of final arguments it asked the Court “to declare [its] responsibility in the facts object of the present proceedings and set measures of reparation that fit within the legal and regulatory measures that the State is implementing as part of its commitments derived from the signing of international treaties in matters of Human Rights.” Likewise, it requested that the Tribunal “acknowledge [the] firm intention [of Peru] to implement policies of reparation” and it “reaffirm[ed] its firm intention to implement[… the symbolic reparations] in a context that means the real dignification of the victims and their next of kin […].” 4) Arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the common intervener with regard to the partial acknowledgment of responsibility 145. With regard to said acknowledgment, the Inter-American Commission expressed that it appreciated the acknowledgment made by the State of the facts and it considers it a positive step towards the compliance of its international obligations. Likewise, in its brief of final arguments (supra para. 103) the Commission added that “[t]he State […] has accepted in its totality the facts of the case, including the denial of justice, reason for which it […] requests that the Court consider them established and include them in the judgment on merits issued by it, in reason of the importance that the establishment of an official truth of that occurred has for the victims of violations of human rights, as well as for their next of kin and the Peruvian society.” 146. Likewise, in its final written arguments the Commission observed that “the acknowledgment [made by the State] does not refer to the juridical implications in relation to the facts, or to the appropriateness of the reparations requested by the parties” and that “the state agent, [during the public hearing,] stated that he did not have instructions to proceed with the acceptance of the Peruvian State’s international responsibility for the violations claimed by the parties.” The Commission requested “that the Court decide in the judgment the matters that remain in contention, that is, the assessment and juridical consequences of the facts acknowledged by the State, and the reparations that result appropriate in attention to the seriousness of the facts, the number of victims, and the nature of the breaches claimed against human rights.” 147. On her part, the common intervener of the representatives asked the Tribunal, inter alia, to “[issue] a judgment […] both on the substantive matters determined by the facts[, as well as] by law, based on […] the arguments of the parties, and that it determine the corresponding reparations.” In the public hearing the intervener stated that she rejected the offer made by the State to try to achieve an amicable solution in the terms proposed (supra para. 143). She also referred to the terms in which the State partially acknowledged its responsibility, and she pointed out that in the criminal investigation that is being carried out the survivors are not considered victims and that the crimes investigated do not correspond to what really happened.