clarify that neither of these two paragraphs questioned by the State include erroneous information. The first of them refers to the characterization the Tribunal made of Sendero Luminoso and other armed groups the State does not agree with; while the second paragraph refers to information the Tribunal has obtained from the evidence presented by the parties in the present case, regarding which the State has shown concern for the possible conclusions that could be derived from said information. 39. Similarly, it is necessary to point out that in the case submitted to the Court the conflict lived in Peru since the beginning of the decade of the eighties and until the end of the year 2000 was not under analysis, nor was the decision regarding who should be attributed the “majority of the blame” for the violence carried out, or the “historic truth” of that occurred in said conflict. On the contrary, the facts for which the International Commission presented an application and the State acknowledged its international responsibility are limited to that occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in May 1992 and that are stated, among others, in paragraph 221 of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs. 40. As has been stated in other opportunities, the Court lacks the power to rule on the nature and aggravating circumstances of the criminal acts attributed to the victims. This is the characteristic of an international human rights court, which is not a criminal court. When ruling on other cases, the Court pointed out that it is not a criminal court in the sense that it may not discuss the criminal responsibility of individuals.7 Therefore, the Court determines the juridical consequences of the facts it has considered as proven within the framework of its competence and concludes if there is any responsibility of the State for the violation of the Convention and it cannot examine the parties’ statements regarding the alleged criminal responsibility of the victims, since this matter corresponds to the domestic jurisdiction or eventually, under certain circumstances, to the international criminal jurisdiction. In this sense, the Court observes that the State in its request for interpretation acknowledged that “[…] it is not within the Court’s jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the behaviors that are foreign to and different from the State’s international responsibility, such as those of the SL [Sendero Luminoso].” (emphasis added). 41. Without detriment to that previously mentioned, the suffering caused to Peruvian society by Sendero Luminoso is widely and publicly known. In effect, as can be read in its Judgment in the present case, the Tribunal is not unaware of the fact that said armed group acted on the fringes of the law, nor is it unaware of the effects of the actions of said group. 42. This Court has previously stated its most energetic rejection to terrorist violence, especially in the cases regarding Peru where it has indicated that: 7 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93; Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, footnote 37; and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 37. 12