21 extrajudicially executing the victims, using State agents.” The Inter-American Commission based its argument primarily on the CVR Report and on the work of a parliamentary commission, known as the “Herrera Commission.” 83. The representatives of the next of kin of the alleged victims endorse the Commission’s arguments, also relying, inter alia, on the CVR Report. They added that Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní had announced publicly, in the context of the national mining strike called by the National Federation of Mining, Iron and Steel Workers of Peru (FNTMMSP), “the dangers to which the trade union leaders were exposed owing to the union struggles they were heading.” The representatives inferred from such statements that it was assumed at the time “that the actions designed to intimidate and eliminate the trade union struggle were perpetrated by members of the group calling itself the ‘Rodrigo Franco’ Commando.” 84. The State affirms that it does not agree with the description of the facts presented by the Commission and the representatives, therefore, it does not acknowledge that the facts can be attributed to the State or to its agents. Nevertheless, the State acknowledges the existence of four hypotheses that would attribute the facts to different groups, in two of which State agents participated. Thus, it admits the existence of the hypothesis attributing the facts to the Rodrigo Franco Commando. However, the State affirms, and provides supporting documents, that there are three other hypotheses that attribute the facts to Sendero Luminoso, to individuals who acted for “financial motives” under the orders of groups of mine owners, or to the Colina paramilitary group. The State considers that these hypotheses “have not been properly taken into account in previous investigations.” Based on the above, the State affirms “the existence of various hypotheses in relation to the alleged death and, consequently, the existence of doubts that do not allow it to accept international responsibility.” 85. In addition, the State holds that, since the Attorney General’s Office is currently conducting an investigative procedure, the version of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cannot be proved. In this regard, the State affirms that “this aspect must be investigated further, not to exempt itself from responsibility, but to give genuine credence to each of the probative elements submitted by the [Inter-American Commission].” Regarding the existence of the Rodrigo Franco Commando, it affirms that “it has instructed the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutor to investigate the alleged existence of the said Commando,” and that “it is awaiting the results.” Lastly, the State asked the Court “that it consider that the Commission’s requests relate to situations that are already being dealt with, since a complete, effective and impartial investigation is being conducted in the domestic jurisdiction in order to establish the historical truth of the facts, and to prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts relating to the murder of the victims on February 13, 1989.” 86. The Court recalls that international case law has upheld the authority of the international courts to assess the evidence freely, without adopting a rigid determination of the quantum required as grounds for a judgment;57 nevertheless, the Court must pay special attention to the circumstances of the specific case and bear in mind the limits 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 54, para. 127; Also cf. Case of the Miguel Castro- Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6 para. 184; Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 13, para. 69; and Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras, supra note 13, para. 35. Cf. Case of the Miguel CastroCastro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 184; Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 13, para. 69; and Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduars, supra note 13, para. 35.