63 imprisoned in pavilion 1A of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, to the maximum security prison for women in Chorrillos.43 The state authorities did not inform the Director of the criminal center, the prisoners, their next of kin or attorneys of the mentioned transfer.44 197(16) The real objective of the “operative” was not the mentioned transfer of the inmates, but instead it was a premeditated attack, an operative designed to attack the life and integrity of the prisoners located in pavilions 1A and 4B of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. The acts of violence were directed against said pavilions, occupied at the time of the events by inmates accused or sentenced for terrorism crimes or treason.45 197(17) The judgment issued by the National Terrorism Chamber on February 3, 2004 indicated that “there are elements that generate a reasonable suspicion in the Court, regarding the fact that on the occasion of Operative Transfer One, the physical elimination of the inmates accused of terrorism that occupied pavilions One A and four B […] was planned at the highest levels of government.” During the 7th and 12th days of May 1992 the press articles referring to the events that were occurring in the Criminal Center Castro Castro, described the visits made by the then Secretary of the Interior to the criminal center, as well as the meetings held by the Cabinet to evaluate the situation of the criminal center, and the visit made by Fujimori on May 10, 1992, to the inside of said penitentiary.46 43 Cfr. Final Report of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, CVR, issued on August 27, 2003 in the city of Lima, Peru, Volume VII, section 2(68) Extrajudicial killings in the criminal center Canto Grande, page 771 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 6, corresponding to a compact disc). 44 Cfr. Judgment issued by the National Terrorism Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on February 3, 2004 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 274, folio 3221); and different testimonial statements offered by the surviving inmates (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendixes between 83 and 112, folios between 1237 and 1482). 45 Cfr. Judgment issued by the National Terrorism Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on February 3, 2004 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 274, folio 3235); and arguments of the State during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court held on the 26th and 27th days of May 2006. 46 Cfr. Judgment issued by the National Terrorism Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on February 3, 2004 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 274, folio 3235); the book “Eye for an Eye” of Humberto Jara (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 10, folios 98 and 99); newspaper article titled “Terroristas se atrincheran en pabellón y atacan con balas, dinamitazos y ácido” published in the newspaper “La República” on May 7, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 45, folios 1024 and 1027); newspaper article titled “Ministro comprobó estado de rebeldía en el penal” published in the newspaper “El Comercio” on May 7, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 46, folio 1031); newspaper article titled “Durante dieciséis horas saldo de enfrentamiento entre terroristas en Canto Grande” published in the newspaper “Expreso” on May 7, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 48, folio 1056); newspaper article titled “Presidente evaluó con ministros y militares situación en penal” published in the newspaper “Expreso” on May 8, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 49, folios 1063 and 1064); newspaper article titled “Por sucesos en penales Fujimori demanda comprensión internacional” published in the newspaper “El Nacional” on May 11, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 59, folios 1105 and 1107); newspaper article titled “Dudas sobre el número total de muertos en el asalto al penal limeño de Canto Grande” published in the newspaper “El País” on May 12, 1992 (dossier of appendixes to the petition, appendix 66, folio 1149); and order for the preliminary proceedings to commence issued on August 29, 2006 by the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Court of Peru (dossier on merits and possible reparations and costs, volume XI, folios 3173 to 3239).