83 Alberto Fujimori Fujimori for some of the events of the present case (supra para. 197(75)); in said order to commence the criminal judge stated, inter alia, that: it is concluded from the preliminary investigations, that ALBERTO FUJIMORI FUJIMORI is incriminated, in his quality of Former President of the Government of National Reconstruction and Supreme Chief of the Armed and Police Forces of Peru, for having ordered the planning and execution of a plan to kill leaders and members of Sendero Luminoso, events that occurred in the Criminal Establishment of a Special Closed Regimen Miguel Castro Castro, between May sixth and tenth nineteen ninety two, for which the accused, as part of his comprehensive strategy against terrorism, which he announced after the proclaimed self coup d’état of April fifth nineteen ninety two, issued Decree Law Number twenty five thousand four hundred and twenty one of April sixth nineteen ninety two, declaring the National Penitentiary Institute in state of reorganization […].124 The So-Called “Operative Transfer 1” that started May 6, 1992 210. In the context described, the State carried out the so-called “Operative Transfer 1”, which according to official sources was done to transfer the inmates that were in pavilion 1A of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison to another maximum-security prison for women. In that pavilion there were approximately 135 female inmates and 50 men (supra para. 197(13). Likewise, it has been proven that the “operative” was also directed against pavilion 4B of said criminal center, in which there was approximately 400 male inmates. The inmates located in those pavilions of the criminal center were accused or convicted for the crimes of terrorism or treason, and they were allegedly members of Sendero Luminoso (supra para. 197(13)). 211. Regarding the start of this “operative”, the parties coincide in that the first act happened on May 6, 1992 at approximately 4:00 hours, when Peruvian security officers started an incursion in pavilion 1A, throwing down part of the wall with explosives, for which three successive continuous detonations. Simultaneously, the police officers made holes in the roof, from which the fired their guns (supra para. 197(20)). The evidence included in the dossier of this case supports this. 212. The magnitude of the force used in that first act of the “operative” carried out in the dawn of May 6, 1992 has not escaped the Court’s consideration. The Commission pointed out in its application that “the State’s security forces employed, from the start of the ‘operative’, excessive force and even war type material that caused the partial destruction of the pavilions.” 213. According to the State’s explanations, at the time of the facts force was used because the inmates were organizing a riot. Regarding this matter, the Commission stated in its application that “the authorities found resistance” to carry out the transfer “operative” and that “resulted in the use of force,” even though in its brief of final arguments is refers to an “alleged resistance to the transfer.” In the same application is assumes a position that is not very clear when it indicates that “it does not matter who carried out the first aggression […].” Likewise, in the application the Commission stated that a “massacre” was committed “[…] against the inmates of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison’.” In the application is also stated that “[t]he fact that the inmates detained in pavilions ‘1A’ and ‘4B’ of the criminal center ‘Castro Castro’ had weapons, of a quantity, characteristics, and functionality unknown by the 124 Cfr. Order to commence the preliminary proceedings issued by the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Court of Peru on August 29, 2006 (dossier on merits and possible reparations and costs, volume XI, folios 3173 through 3239).