8 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 41. Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas; Felipe Flores-Chipana; Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea; Armando Amaro-Cóndor; Heráclides Pablo-Meza and Dora Oyague-Fierro (para. 50 of the application.) the military presence at and control of the university campus of La Cantuta the day of the events (paras. 51 to 53 of the application.) the abduction, including the illegal detention, mistreatment of ten people: Hugo MuñozSanchez; Juan Mariños-Figueroa; Bertila Lozano-Torres; Roberto Teodoro-Espinoza; Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas; Felipe Flores-Chipana; Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea; Armando Amaro-Cóndor; Heráclides Pablo-Meza and Dora Oyague-Fierro; their forced disappearance, the infringement of the right to recognition as a person before the law (paras. 53 to 57 of the application.) the extra-legal execution of Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Roberto Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea and Bertila Lozano-Torres, whose bodies were subsequently found (paras. 58 to 68 of the application.) the persistence of the forced disappearance of Dora Oyague-Fierro, Felipe FloresChipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Hugo Muñoz-Sanchez (para. 69 of the application.) the violation of the right to a fair trial and legal protection. These facts were revealed in the initial acts of the investigation (paras. 90 to 105 of the application,) the subsequent intervention of military courts (paras. 106, 111 and 112 of the application,) of the Congress of the Republic (para. 109 of the application,) order of the Supreme Court of Justice (paras. 108, 109 and 110 of the application,) passing of Amnesty Law No. 26,479 by the Congress (para. 113 of the application,) and Law No. 26,492 (para. 116 of the application) and the enactment of said amnesty laws by the Executive Power, even though it is not specifically stated in the application. the existence of the so named “Grupo Colina” (Colina Group) (paras. 83 to 89 of the application.) the enactment of the amnesty laws and the effects of the decision of the Inter-American Court in the case of Barrios Altos vs. Perú (paras. 113, 116, 117 and 118 of the application.) the new investigations (paras. 119, 120, 121 to 126 of the application.) Based on this acknowledgement of facts the State declared that: In the light of the investigations started in 1993, then interrupted and resumed by the Attorney General´s Office of Perú, - the body empowered by the Political Constitution of the State and the Organizational Law of the Attorney General´s Office to carry out that activity-, [i]t is evident, in both criminal actions pending before the courts of the Judicial Power, that during 14 years. Articles 4, 5, 3, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, have been violated by the acts and omissions of the Peruvian State, 42. Moreover, the State immediately made several statements regarding the scope of the aforementioned acknowledgement, which was titled “contradiction of the State and partial acquiescence in the legal consequences of the admitted facts and some qualifications or legal considerations on them” in the following terms: The Peruvian State, immediately after the end of the administration of former President Alberto Fujimori, adopted specific measures to restore a smooth relationship with the Inter-American system of protection, reinforce the rule of law and avoid impunity for the crimes committed against human rights and to the detriment of public property.[…] [T]hrough a Joint Communication signed before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Peruvian State on February 22, 2001, the State announced that it would acknowledge its international responsibility for some cases, including the case of La Cantuta, and it would adopt other measures in those cases that had concluded with Reports produced under Article 51 of the American Convention.[…] The State does not deny the occurrence of events nor the fact that they took place on account of acts or omissions committed by government agents, whether authorities or public officers, and therefore, the State is also involved. Nevertheless, the State explains that the reaction of the State took place in a backdrop where impunity prevailed up to the end of year 2000, when the State changed its conduct as from the beginning of the democratic transition and the restoration of the rule of law in the country. […]