16. The petitioners state that the government rejected the inmates’ call for formation of a committee composed of representatives of the International Red Cross and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to negotiate a peaceful solution to the conflict. They point out that the prisoners made every effort to resolve the situation differently and even went so far as to sign a document with Attorney General Mirtha Campos, where the main point was the Red Cross’ presence as a minimal requirement to guarantee the lives of the prisoners at the time of surrender. They added that in the end, the petitioners revolted when they realized that the real objective of the Army and police troops was to kill everyone. 17. The petitioners state that the confrontation continued until May 9, 1992, when the Army troops began to selectively execute prisoners, despite the fact that they had surrendered and were leaving the facility to be transferred to another facility. 18. They add that at 1:00 p.m. on May 22, 1992, 500 Army troopers, wearing hoods and heavily armed, again entered “Castro Castro” prison to move 300 prisoners from one area known as “no-man’s land” to the demolished cellblock “1A”. During this maneuver, the troops mistreated and beat the prisoners, exacerbating the condition of the wounded who were there. The petitioners state that the prisoners were held incommunicado, some without clothing or shoes. There were few mattresses and blankets, little food and no proper medical attention. 19. The petitioners point out that the operation that the Army and government police forces conducted against the Castro Castro prison left 34 prisoners dead and 18 wounded. They maintain that those immediately to blame for the events were the Prison Warden, Colonel Cajahuanca, the Assistant Warden, Commander Pinto, and Commander Guzmán. These three had a plan to isolate and annihilate the inmates. 20. The petitioners allege that the treatment of inmates at “Miguel Castro Castro” prison was inhumane, given the scarcity of food, the lack of heating in the cells, the lack of medical care for sick prisoners, the absolute ban on visits–both by family members and prisoners’ attorneys-, the harassment, abuse and brutality of the guards charged with the custody of the prisoners and the safety of prisons. 21. They argue that the petition was submitted before the proceedings in the domestic courts had closed because of the urgency of the situation and to avoid further and possibly irreparable harm to the inmates at Miguel Casto Castro prison. B The State’s position 22. The State alleges that the decision to transfer inmates prosecuted for terrorism from the Miguel Castro Castro facility to a similar facility called “Santa Mónica” prison, was because of the need to gradually reduce overcrowding and promiscuity between male and female inmates. It adds that the operation was planned by the Peruvian National Police, to transfer female inmates incarcerated at “Miguel Castro Castro” prison to the “Santa Monica” women’s prison, and to house them in facilities especially equipped to handle them. 23. It points out that the representative from the Attorney General’s Office, Mrs. Mirtha Campos Salas, and assistant government attorneys were present at the “Castro Castro” prison from May 6 to May 11, 1992, as required under domestic law and at the request of the head of Legal Support and the Peruvian National Police. The State mentions that the intervention of the representative of the Attorney General’s Office was in response to the pressing need to monitor for and ensure respect for the law so as to defend the legal system, protect the lives and physical safety of the male and female inmates and, above all, to respect the human rights of those inmates. 24. The State disputes the petitioner’s version of the facts and contends that the operation was conducted by National Police troops, since the Army troops, numbering 100 men, were in charge of guarding the outside perimeter of the prison and remained in waiting. The State contends that the Army troops never directly intervened in the incursion. 3