6 11. Although it was not possible to identify the remains of all the persons executed in the “Misteriosa” mine, it is reasonable to conclude that they were the 15 individuals detained (14 in the village and one on the road) who were forced to enter the mine and were then massacred with FAL submachine guns. The dynamite explosions that followed were the first attempts to erase the traces of the massacre. All this is undoubtedly macabre, as one of the family members stated, but it is the sad reality. 12. Conclusion. The main factual conclusion relevant to this opinion is that the 15 detainees died on July 4, 1991. The judgment discusses the failures and delays in the procedures aimed at identifying the remains though DNA testing and other contemporary techniques, but – apart from the fact the condition and dispersion of these remains make identification extremely difficult – this factor does not alter the actual and legal situation of the 15 persons who lost their lives on July 4, 1991. II. LEGAL CHARACTERIZATION: MASS EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION (MASSACRE), NOT FORCED DISAPPEARANCE 13. The judgment, in agreement with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and with the position of the victims’ representatives, has characterized the facts of this case as forced disappearance of persons, and consequently has understood that the Inter-American Convention on the matter is applicable to the case, which did not even exist on the date on which the 14 detainees of the Santa Bárbara peasant community were killed. In fact, said Convention was adopted in Belém do Pará on June 9, 1994, and was ratified by Peru on February 8, 2002 (instrument of ratification deposited on February 13, 2002). 14. However, the characterization made in the judgment differs from that given by the next of kin of the executed persons, 12 after the first few days (judgment, paras. 95 and 96) when they had not yet received complete information about the massacre (a word that the CVR Report includes in the title of the corresponding chapter and reiterates nine other times in its text), as well as by the Peruvian authorities, both in the criminal jurisdiction 13 and in the ordinary justice system. 14 It also differs from that made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, “whose report on two cases involving judgments handed down by the military courts 12 CVR Report, volume VII, Section Four: Crimes and violations of human rights, Chapter 2, p.538 (Zósimo Hilario Quispe, November 29, 1991, “crimes against life, the person and health (Homicide);” Judgment, paras. 97 and 98, (Viviano Hilario Mancha, July 12, 1991, “crime of homicide”), and Judgment, para. 100 (Nicolás Hilario Morán, President of the administrative council of the peasant community of Santa Bárbara, and Máximo Pérez Torres, treasurer of the municipal agency of the same community, July 17, 1991, “homicide”). 13 CVR Report, volume VII, p. 538 (Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Huancavelica, “crimes against life, the person and health in the category of Genocide,” as well as crimes against property, the public administration and the administration of justice, and in one case of a crime against freedom– violation of sexual freedom); p. 539 (Auditor of the Army’s Second Judicial District, which argues that there was “aggravated homicide, abuse of authority, negligence, extortion and theft, offenses against the duty and dignity of the service and rape.” It also states that “it is admitted that the massacre of the villagers took place at the hands of soldiers under the command of Infantry Lieutenant Javier Bendezú Vargas and classifying the crime committed by said officer as aggravated homicide”); page 541 (Prosecutor’s Office of Huancavelica, extension of the complaint to include several military personnel as “intellectual co-authors of the massacre,” being the “commanders responsible for the counterinsurgency battalions” involved), and page 542 (report of the Provisional Criminal Judge of Huancavelica to the Criminal Chamber, which concludes that the crimes of abuse of authority, extortion, genocide, theft and sexual offenses-rape have been proven). 14 Public Prosecutor's Office, substitution of the classification of genocide for that of "aggravated homicide with the aggravating factors of ferocity and great cruelty with reference to the death of the fifteen villagers of Rodeo Pampa;” National Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, classification as a crime against humanity and consequently not subject to the statute of limitations, and conviction for aggravated homicide by ferocity and premeditation.