In the case of the subversives Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, alias ‘Cinthya’ and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, there is evidence, such as the testimony cited above by Hidetaka Ogura and the the autopsy reports, suggesting that these two were also victims of arbitrary executions.417 E) Finding on the facts by the Peruvian courts 337. The verdict by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012, drew the following conclusion:418 At the beginning of the operation, the delta eight squad, divided into two subgroups provided with aluminum ladders, gained access to the second floor (room ‘I’) from the balcony, where they found several hostages, including the Japanese embassy's first secretary Hidetaka Ogura, and it was in this same area that the two subversives from the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement died; they were tagged as NN09, later identified as Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza, and NN10, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva. […], it was Captain Paz and Sergeant Alvarado from the Third Army Infantry who killed these subversives under circumstances in which the subversives approached the place where the Japanese hostages were being evacuated, and they were carrying firearms; this intervention was depicted in the sketches mentioned above, submitted by General José Williams Zapata when he made his statement […], that is, according to the unfolding of the events and the design of the operation itself, it can be concluded that these subversives were felled in combat and therefore it is clear that there was no arbitrary execution whatsoever and consequently no order or transmission of any order to the accused for this purpose, because the decision to shoot was taken immediately as a result of the entry into the room of the two armed subversives when the hostages were being evacuated, and it would make no sense to presume that there was some order or transmission of an order between the accused concerning these two commandos at that very moment. […]. The expert statements in the case file repeatedly uphold the thesis that there was no extrajudicial execution of these two commandos, concluding that the gunshots observed showed no sign of having been fired by a targeted weapon, and with Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Informe Final, 2003, volume VII, chapter 2.66, Extrajudicial executions at the residence of the Japanese ambassador (1997), p. 735 (evidence file, volume I, annex 1 to the case submission brief, folio 21). 417 418 In her dissenting opinion, Judge Carolina Lizárraga Houghton defended a different view of the facts: [W]itness Ogura related his experience, saying that […] when he was rescued by the commandos in room ‘I’ of the residence of the Japanese ambassador, when he turned to take the ladder, he was facing the main door to the room and saw that two members of the MRTA were surrounded by the military, a woman called ‘Cynthia’ and a man he said he did not recognize, and that before he went down the ladder, he heard that ‘Cynthia’ was shouting something like, ‘Don’t kill him’ or ‘Don’t kill me,’ and his testimony convinced this writer, and in her opinion, she can state that it has not been proven that the ladder that witness Ogura used to climb down from room ‘I’ had been placed against the left side railing of the balcony of room ‘I’ because the photographic record referenced in the majority opinion […] was taken at a different time, after the rescue operation, and there are also other photographs taken after the rescue operation, […] showing that the ladder was placed at the front part of the room ‘I’ balcony; moreover, the sketches also referenced in the opinion, […] showing the placement of this ladder on the left side of the balcony are not official documents, but were drawn by the commandos themselves and brought to this trial as an addition to their initial statements as an argument for the defense when they were defendants before the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. Even if the ladder had been placed on the left side of the balcony, the statement by witness Ogura, in the opinion of the undersigned, is consistent with the view shown in the photograph from the case file […] and the photograph […] that shows that the distance between the door frame and the railing beside which the ladder is claimed to have been placed is so narrow that it does provide a line of sight into the room, especially so if witness Ogura claims that what he observed took place before he climbed onto the ladder. Dissenting opinion by Superior Judge Carolina Lizárraga Houghton (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folios 13694 to 13695).