111. The mentioned incident – that promptly became of public and notorious knowledge – occurred on Sunday 07.23.2007, when a group of demonstrators of an unknown identity attacked the memorial “The Eye that Cries” in Lima, dedicated to the victims of the political repression and violence that flagellated the country between 1980 and 2000. The demonstrators, in an unpleasant act of vandalism, beat the monument, destroyed an important part of its central stone, took out several stones with the names of the victims, and broke part of them. It was an act of violence; this time directed toward the respect for the memory of those who lost their lives during the two-decade cycle of extreme violence that flagellated the country. Since the matter of the collective memory of all the victims of the Peruvian tragedy underlies the State’s present request for interpretation of the Judgment, I feel compelled to include in this Concurring Opinion my reflections regarding this incident. 112. The attackers of the memorial, not moved by the numerous fatal victims of violence from different origins, turned their hate against a memorial in respect to the memory of the victims. At the same time, it was an attack against the future (the search of peace through justice in Peru) and the past (the respect for the dead, the victims of violence and repression). Their act of vandalism promptly generated public demonstrations – that also became of public and notorious knowledge – of repudiation to the attack against the monument, which culminated in a public demonstration in the Campo de Marte, in Lima, on Thursday 09.27.2007, which offered an act of amends to the memorial “The Eye that Cries”. All the victims, - those of the terrorism of Sendero Luminos, as well as those of the State’s terrorism, - must be venerated by the memory of their surviving loved ones and the entire social means. 113. The forms to express the duty to remember – in the exercise of the right to remember87 - vary, - the monument “The Eye that Cries” is one of them, - but they are all emanations of the human spirit, of the ties of solidarity between the living and the dead, which acts of vandalism are not capable of affecting. Acts of vandalism such as those perpetrated against the monument “The Eye that Cries” are moved by a blind hate, and perpetrated in vain, since they do not reach the harmful objective they seek, to erase the memory of the victims. The memory and respect for the dead have outlived, throughout history, the hate and the vain attempts to erase them. 114. In the history of humanity there are successive examples of this primacy of spirit over matter, - primacy that seems to generate despair among the vandals, selfconsumed by their own hate. Throughout history monuments, memorials, temples, and architectural works, works of art and literature, archives, and libraries have been destroyed.88 Those who have started the war are not satisfied with killing human beings (labeled “enemies”), including the elderly, women, and defenseless children; they have destroyed entire families and have also sought to destroy the history of the victims, their . Cf., recently, F. Gómez Isa (ed.), El Derecho a la Memoria, Gipuzkoa/España, Giza Eskubideak Derechos Humanos, 2006, pp. 23-615. 87 . Cf. R. Bevan, The Destruction of Memory - Architecture at War, London, Reaktion Books, 2006, pp. 7-212. In 1824-1825, when he was still very young, Víctor Hugo denounced, outraged and in two pamphlets (published years later, in 1831 and 1834), the vandalism in the destruction of monuments and works of architecture in France; cf. V. Hugo, Pamphlets pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine (éd. 1834), [Paris/Barcelona], Éd. A. Minotaure, 2006 [reed.], pp. 13-53. 88 33