2 7. For the purposes of the instant case, we could take as an example the mission of constitutionality courts, which cannot conduct civil or criminal proceedings, as the case may be, but are only empowered to verify that proceedings and any decisions render thereunder are consistent with the National Constitution. The situation with the Inter-American Court is similar. The Court can only confront domestic rules – laws, administrative acts, jurisdictional resolutions, without limitation- to the provisions of the Convention and rule on their consistency in order to establish, if applicable, the State’s international liability for failing to fulfill its obligations thereunder. The Court does not develop a new stage –or instance- i.e. ordinary proceedings. Proceedings begin, develop and conclude in the domestic jurisdiction. Therefore, the international court, as much in the same manner as constitutionality courts and as opposed to trial courts, cannot assess the facts and the evidence, nor is it empowered to order an acquittal or conviction. 8. Nevertheless, the essence of the human rights protection system, applied to conventional rules, involves the need to value the fairness, opportunity, need, adequacy and proportionality of certain facts from the point of view of human rights. This is an undeniable fact that, as reflected by the Inter-American Court’s precedents, has already been analyzed when considering the limits and restrictions applicable to the exercise of rights or the suspension of the State’s obligation in that regard. The foregoing considerations also apply to the guarantee regime set forth in the Convention –inherent to the natural obligations imposed upon States,- which may and should also be subject to assessment patterns in order to estimate its efficacy and validity and, in that sense, its consistency with the Convention itself. 9. The State’s general obligation to guarantee the respect for human rights as set forth in Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José embodies the duty to effectively promote prosecution of any illegal act that violates the provisions of the Pact and that affects interests enjoying legal protection as human rights. Evidently, the act of prosecuting (which may consist of a series of acts by the State: crime definition, formal accusation, judgment, enforcement; all of them having large criminal relevance and significant impact in other areas of the public rules system in the event of illegal conduct) must be consistent with the duty to safeguard certain rights embodied therein. Otherwise, the act of prosecuting would no longer fulfill said duty and would result in non-compliance with a State’s obligation, which should not be fulfilled through inappropriate means, arbitrarily or unreasonably. 10. Indeed, said safeguard should in fact be consistent with a series of elements whose examination allows to assess the State’s fulfillment of its duties: the legally protected interest, the extent and circumstances of infringement, the conduct of the perpetrator, the need to avoid leniency –which paves the way for impunity- and excesses –which result in tyranny. Both leniency and excess, which involve a disparity between the violation committed and the public legal reaction, are in conflict with the rationality rule that must always guide a State’s conduct upon exercising its powers. 11. Therefore, the analysis of the events from the human rights perspective cannot disregard the necessary balance between the violation of rights committed and the enforcement of the safeguards –within the criminal jurisdiction- undertaken by the State. These considerations, as mentioned before, do not intent to replace the trial court with the international court in determining if the illegal conduct that violates human rights falls under the definition of the crime and in imposing liability and punishment.