7 (one of them is from the Santa Bárbara case) [states] that ‘the disproportion between the seriousness of the crimes and the sentences imposed has become evident.’ 15” 15. The classification as forced disappearance of the situation of people who are already known to be dead is incompatible with the acceptance of the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility and is manifestly groundless and unnecessary for the proper legal consideration of such terrible and macabre facts as those in this case. Characterization incompatible with the acceptance of the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility 16. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment, the Court states: “This Court understands that Peru admitted the following facts: i. the Plan known as Operation “Apolonia" was designed as part of the State’s policy to combat subversion in the Province and Department of Huancavelica, and was devised by the Political and Military Command of Huancavelica, with the specific objective of raiding the village of Rodeo Pampa, in the community of Santa Bárbara; ii. the mission of Plan “Apolonia” was to capture and/or destroy “terrorist criminals”; iii. in the execution of Plan Apolonia, two military patrols were ordered to participate: one from the counterinsurgency base of Lircay and, the other from the counterinsurgency base of Huancavelica; iv. the only people found in Rodeo Pampa were unarmed villagers who belonged to two family groups, most of them women and children; v. the route taken by the ‘Escorpio’ patrol with the 14 detainees is the one that leads to the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine, which is located on the road from Rodeo Pampa to the Lircay military base; vi. “the commander of the ‘Escorpio’ patrol, Lt. Bendezú Vargas, upon receiving information of the discovery of dynamite, gave the order to take all the detainees without exception up to the mine shaft, including a 65 year-old man, women, and children;” vii. “the treatment and elimination of the victims and the circumstances in which this took place, whereby they were tied up and previously forced into the mine shaft, constitutes a serious violation of their human condition, and therefore their dignity;” viii. “the detention and execution of the victims was indiscriminate, since no consideration was given to the fact that they were members of the civilian population, who were unarmed and defenseless in the face of the superiority of 15 United Nations document E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.2, November 15, 1993. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on his Mission to Peru from May 24 to June 2, 1993, para. 53. This report does not appear to have been considered in the judgment. The report, according to United Nations terminology, refers to “the massacre of Santa Bárbara” (para. 23) and makes numerous references to forced disappearances, clearly distinguishing them from extrajudicial executions but pointing out that sometimes what begins as a forced disappearance ends as an extrajudicial execution. This last observation does not apply to the massacre of Santa Bárbara.