8 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 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 xiii. the detainees “were dynamited for the purpose of concealing all traces of the crime committed.” Therefore, the dispute with respect to these facts has ceased.” (Cursive added) 17. In paragraph 25, the Court listed the issues on which “the dispute continues.” None of them refers to the legal classification of the facts, 16 most notably the fact that “the detainees “were killed by shots from FAL rifles, weapons used by the Army” and that “one or two dynamite charges were detonated in the mine where the victims had been killed in order to eliminate the evidence,” so that ��most of the victims’ bodies were destroyed, and only human remains were found during the judicial inspection.” 18. In paragraph 32, after indicating that the State has acknowledged its responsibility for “the violation of the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty, established in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention” and of Article 19 in relation to the minors, the Court categorically declares: “The Court decides to accept the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State.” However, contradictorily, in the following paragraph (33) it states: “Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court notes that the dispute continues regarding the legal classification of the facts of the case as extrajudicial execution or forced disappearance […].” Unsubstantiated classification 19. The legal classification for which the majority of the Court has opted is manifestly groundless. Obviously, it cannot be argued that the murder of 15 people who were shot with FAL rifles and the subsequent destruction of their bodies with dynamite explosions is not an extrajudicial execution. Likewise, it cannot be affirmed that these human remains belong to the disappeared persons. 16 The text of paragraph 25 states the following: “Therefore, the dispute with respect to these facts has ceased. However, the dispute continues with respect to: i) the alleged theft of property and burning of the victims’ homes; ii) the complaints filed after the events and the response of the State authorities thereto; iii) the manner in which the investigations of the facts were conducted, the recovery and identification of the remains and the forensic procedures; iv) the alleged existence of a series of cover-up mechanisms that were clearly deliberate and that included, at least, the denial of the detentions, the use of dynamite on several occasions and during the first ten days after the events in the abandoned “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine as a means to destroy the evidence of what happened, as well as the harassment and detention of villagers who reported the facts, and threats to justice operators, and v) the alleged lack of due diligence and irregularities in the capture of the fugitive defendants”.