92 “The gender violence in the present case” f) the massacre was initially directed against approximately 133 women who were located in pavilion 1-A of the prison Miguel Castro Castro, with the objective of exterminating them, thus becoming individualized targets of the attack against the prison. Many of the female inmates were murdered point blank; g) in the final oral arguments she stated that at the time of the facts the inmate Eva Challco was approximately 7 months pregnant and she gave birth prematurely on June 27, 1992. Sadi, the son of Eva Challco, “should have been considered present in pavilion 1A, since he was about to be born and has been a direct victim of the entire attack as a person since he was physically there within Eva’s womb;” “State Crimes and the State’s International Responsibility” h) “the violations to human rights […] were not an ‘excess’ of some police officers that did not know how to ‘control’ a situation of violence in the prison. It was a massacre planned from the highest levels of the Peruvian State, […] there was a chain of command” from Alberto Fujimori, his cabinet, and the high military authorities of Peru; “Crimes against Humanity” i) “the violations object [of this case …] constitute, at least, crimes against humanity;” “Genocide” j) “the violations object [of this case …] were committed against the victims having as a target their alleged belonging to a specific group (or considered by the Peruvian State as ‘permeable’ to communist ideas), with the intention of destroying said group in all or in part.” Even though in the present case the identity of the group of alleged victims is not a protected category under the definition of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, “the State of Peru [in its Criminal Code] has accepted a definition of genocide that expands the definition reflected in [said] Convention, including the ‘social group’ among the protected groups and therefore they are linked vis a vis under its jurisdiction to not submit those social groups to genocidal acts;” and k) in the present case genocide occurs in virtue of the fact that the State “is responsible for murdering members of the group of prisoners in question,” causing them serious physical and mental damage, as well as submitting said group to “life conditions calculated to cause their physical destruction in all or in part.” Besides, these acts were committed against these prisoners “for considering them part of a specific group which was a State target.” The “intent” or “malice specialis” required for the crime of genocide can be proven through different acts attributed to the State.