86 bullets extracted from the bodies or those found in pavilions 1A and 4B, and in the “roundabout” and “no man’s land” f the Criminal Center Castro Castro; and recently on April 21, 2006 a judicial inspection was carried out in the criminal center (supra para. 197(74)). 217. It is important to observe the differences that existed in the number of casualties: 41 identified inmates and one police officer, as well as in the number of inmates injured (approximately 190) in contrast to approximately 9 wounded police officers (supra para. 197(40)). The State has not established the cause of death of the police officer or of the injuries of the mentioned agents. 218. In this order of considerations it is necessary to make reference to that established in the judgment issued on February 3, 2004 by the National Terrorism Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (supra para. 197(67), which acquitted the four inmates accused of terrorism, breach to personal liberty, exposure or abandonment of people in danger, illegal possession of weapons and explosive material, and violence and resistance to authority “against the State and others”, based on the facts occurred as a consequence of the development of the “Operative Transfer 1”. In said judgment the National Terrorism Chamber established, inter alia, that “on May 6, 1992 the inmates of pavilions One A and four B were not rebellious, or carrying out acts of force or displays of violence whatsoever that would have justified an intervention of the police with the characteristics of the operative “Transfer 1”. The testimonial evidence offered before this Court also coincides in the fact that there was no riot of the inmates when the State started the attack (supra paras. 186 and 187). 219. Since this Court has considered as proven that there was no riot or any other situation that merited the legitimate use of force at the beginning of the “Operative Transfer 1”, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to consider the controversy regarding the possession and use of weapons by inmates, matter regarding which there is no conclusive evidence. 220. In the present case it is clear that the State’s actions in the so-called “Operative Transfer 1”, which lasted four days, were widely diffused in the Peruvian society, they were treated by the press and publicly by state authorities as state actions tending to control a riot of inmates considered members of subversive groups, and they also meant a public exposure regarding the magnitude of force that the State was capable of using in the anti-subversive fight. 221. The events, carried out directly by state agents whose actions were protected by their authority, directed there actions toward people imprisoned in a state criminal center, that is, people regarding who the State had the responsibility to adopt security and special protection measures, in its condition of direct protector of their rights, since they were under its custody.125 222. Another important piece of information that this Tribunal will take into account when analyzing the State’s international responsibility is that the referred 125 Cfr. Case of the Penitenciary Center Capital Regional Yare I and II, Provisional Measures. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 30, 2006, Ninth whereas; Case of the Internado Judicial de Monagas (La Pica), Provisional Measures. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 9, 2006, Ninth whereas; and Case of the Cárcel de Urso Branco, Provisional Measures. Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 18, 2002, Eighth whereas.