4 14. In this case of La Cantuta, the respondent Government itself, in a constructive attitude in the course of the adversarial proceedings, acknowledged international liability both before the Commission and before this Court, although not encompassing all the facts and their legal consequences. Before the Court, it did so both in its response to the application (chapter V) and in its written closing arguments (chapter III). Also, as significantly recorded by the Court in this Judgment (para. 44), in its oral and written closing arguments, the respondent Government itself expressly acknowledged that “international crimes” had been committed. The State expressed, in its own words that "(...) It reiterates (...) that such acts and omissions constitute international unlawful facts which generate international liability of the State. They constitute crimes according to domestic law and international crimes that the State must punish. (...)" (para. 44). 15. What do those jusinternationalists, who keep on insisting to declare that there can be no State crime, have to say before this manifestation of the State itself, before the overwhelming evidence of the facts and proof in this case of La Cantuta? How long will they remain in the shadows of their lack of conscience and sensitivity regarding the fate of the victims of human brutality? When will they awake to the need to contribute to the credibility of the legal profession, and stop closing their eyes to the State criminality? 16. In this Judgment of the case La Cantuta, the Court determined the scope of the consequences of the State acknowledgement regarding to the legal claims (paras. 52-54). Furthermore, it observed that it was not an isolated or single manifestation by the State, but a significant manifestation to which others have been added, remembered by the Court in this Judgment: "The facts of this case have been classified by the CVR, the domestic judicial bodies and by the State´s representative before this Court, as “international crimes” and “crimes against humanity” (...). The extra-legal execution and forced disappearance of the alleged victims were perpetrated in a context of generalized and systematic attack against sectors of the civil population. Merely pointing out (...) that the Court considers it acknowledged and proven that the planning and execution of detention and subsequent cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, extra-legal execution or forced disappearance of alleged victims, carried out in a coordinated and concealed way by members of the military forces and the Colina Group, could not have passed unnoticed to or have occurred without the orders of the highest ranks of the Executive Power and the then military forces and intelligence bodies, especially the chiefs of intelligence and the President of the Republic himself” (paras. 95-96). 17. The Court added that, regarding the violation of the right to life – acknowledged by the respondent Government - of the professor and the nine students kidnapped at the University of La Cantuta, “the case facts were the result of an operation executed, coordinated and concealed by the Grupo Colina, with the knowledge and superior orders of the intelligence services and of the then President of the Republic himself” (para. 114). When referring to the forced disappearance of the victims, the Court accurately remarked that "the international liability of the State is aggravated when the disappearance is part of a systematic pattern or practice applied or tolerated by the State, as it constitutes a crime against humanity which implies a crass abandonment of the essential principles on which the InterAmerican system is grounded. (...) The international liability of the State is configured in an aggravated manner due to the context in which the facts were perpetrated, (...) as well as the flaws regarding protection and investigation obligations (...).”4 4 Paragraphs 115-116 (emphasis added).