11 not limited merely to confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgements made by the State or to verifying the formal conditions of such acts; rather the Court must weigh them in light of the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, 7 so that it is able to determine, insofar as possible and in exercise of its jurisdiction, the truth of what happened. 8 The Court advises that the acknowledgement of specific facts and violations may have effects and consequences in the analysis made by this Court on the other facts and violations alleged in the same case, insofar as they are all part of the same set of circumstances. 24. Regarding the facts of the instant case, the State acknowledged them in the terms established in the judgment of the National Criminal Chamber of February 9, 2012, and the Final Judgment (ejecutoría suprema) of May 29, 2013. In other words, it did not specifically admit all the facts described in the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Report or in the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives. Nevertheless, as it has done in other cases, 9 this Court understands that Peru admitted the following facts: i. the Plan known as Operation “Apolonia" was designed as part of the State’s policy to combat subversion in the Province and Department of Huancavelica, and was devised by the Political and Military Command of Huancavelica, with the specific purpose of raiding the village of Rodeo Pampa, in the community of Santa Bárbara; ii. the mission of Operation “Apolonia” was to capture and/or destroy “terrorist criminals”; iii. in the execution of Operation Apolonia, two military patrols were ordered to participate: one from the counterinsurgency base of Lircay and, the other from the counterinsurgency base of Huancavelica; iv. the only people found in Rodeo Pampa were unarmed villagers who belonged to two family groups, and most of them were women and children; v. the route taken by the “Escorpio” patrol with the 14 detainees is the one that leads to the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine, which is located on the road from Rodeo Pampa to the military base of Lircay; vi. “the commander of the ‘Escorpio’ patrol, Bendezú Vargas, upon receiving information of the discovery of dynamite, gave the order to take all the detainees without exception up to the mine shaft, including a 65 year-old man, women, and children”; vii. “the treatment and elimination of the victims and the circumstances in which this took place, whereby they were tied up and previously forced into the mine shaft, constitutes a serious violation of their human condition, and therefore of their dignity”; viii. “the detention and execution of the victims was indiscriminate, since no consideration was given to the fact that they were members of the civilian population, who were unarmed and defenseless in the face of the superiority of the armed military patrol. And […] seven of the victims were very young children, who enjoy special legal protection”; ix. the names and ages of the 14 victims mentioned; x. “the former soldier Elihoref Huamaní Vergara was also killed with the other victims”; xi. “the purpose of taking the detainees up to the mine, tied up, clearly evidenced that the intention was to kill them”; xii. the detainees “were killed by shots from FAL rifles, a weapon used by the Army. […] Almost immediately, one or two dynamite charges were detonated in the mine where the victims had been killed in order to eliminate the evidence. Most of the victims’ bodies were destroyed, and only human remains were found during the judicial inspection;” and 7 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27. 8 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 27. 9 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 25, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 27.