98 the Inter-American system, in such amount as the Court may in fairness assess. Also, CEJIL incurred expenses before the Inter-American system over more than seven years, totaling about US$ 29,710.46. Arguments of the State 197. The State has argued that: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) between 1996 and 1998, it paid compensation in the amount of three million Soles to the alleged victims’ next of kin. In this regard, it has fulfilled its obligation to adequately compensate such next of kin; it has been driving the investigation of the facts in order that all guilty parties may be identified and punished as required by law. In particular, the State emphasized the matter of the intellectual perpetrators or those who allegedly ordered the commission of international crimes. At the judicial and institutional level, the right to truth is not only acknowledged as a right of individuals but also as a collective right. Furthermore, the State argued that in Perú, the reading of a judgment issued in a criminal action is a public event and, considering that the case at hand is public knowledge and one of public interest, the outcome of the proceeding will be naturally publicized; on June 21, 2006, acting through the President of Perú, the State apologized to the authorities of Universidad Nacional de Educación “Enrique Guzmán y Valle,” La Cantuta, during a ceremony held for his decoration by said institution. This is a specific and recent measure that was relayed by the mass media. The Court should adjudge and declare whether such action amounts to a reparative measure equal or similar to the one sought herein. Moreover, an attempt at having an act directed at a legal entity included as part of the measures of non-repetition is inadmissible; a State policy is in place for national reconciliation. The CVR’s Final Report is a part of such policy. Also, the State has created the Comisión Multisectorial de Alto Nivel [High-Level Cross-Sector Commission,] placed in charge of peace, collective reparation and national reconciliation policies; a monument known as “El ojo que llora” [“The Crying Eye”] already exists in Lima in memoriam of all victims of violence. In this regard, this is a measure of reparation in the honor and memory of all victims of Perú’s domestic armed conflict; it will accept such costs and expenses as may be reasonably proved before the Court and which are directly connected to the steps and action taken in this proceeding both domestically and before the Inter-American system. Given that APRODEH has counseled the alleged victims from the very beginning, CEJIL’s claims must necessarily be proved, and an adequate legal and institutional framework is in place such that no occurrences similar to the facts of this case will ever take place in the future. The Court’s Assessments 198. Given the State’s acknowledgement of liability (supra paras. 37 to 57), and in line with the arguments on the merits stated in the above chapters, the Court found the State responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora