2 juridical relativism, illustrated by the "endorsement" of a decision of a national tribunal when it is considered in accordance with the Convention, or else the determination that it does not generate, or ought not to generate, legal effects (as decided by this Court in the recent cases of Barrios Altos, Merits, Judgment of 14.03.2001, and of Cantoral Benavides, Reparations, Judgment of 03.12.2001) when it is considered incompatible with the American Convention. 5. It may be recalled, in this respect, that, in its Judgment on preliminary objections (of 26.01.1999) in the case Cesti Hurtado versus Peru, this Court discarded the objection of the respondent State to its competence to pronounce on the personal freedom of an individual whose juridical situation had already been resolved by a definitive sentence with the authority of res judicata. In rejecting the argument, the Inter-American Court pondered that "in international jurisdiction the parties and the matter in controversy are, by definition, different from those in domestic jurisdiction"3, as the substantive aspect of the controversy before the Court is whether the respondent State has violated the international obligations which it contracted in becoming Party to the Convention. 6. From the standpoint of the Inter-American Court, the only thing which is definitive is its own determination of the compatibility or otherwise with the American Convention of administrative acts and practices, national laws and decisions of national tribunals of the respondent State. No one questions the principle of the subsidiarity of the international jurisdiction, which refers specifically to the mechanisms of protection; nor should one lose sight that, at substantive level, in the present domain of protection, the norms of the international and domestic legal orders are in constant interaction, to the benefit of the protected human beings. 7. In the present case, the aforementioned sentences of the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction of the respondent State established the (patrimonial and administrative) responsibility of the State, expressly and specifically by "fault of service" ("falla del servicio") of the National Police of Colombia (of the Ministry of Defence), as a result of the death of the victims. We fear that there may arise occasions in which the thin layer of formal juridicism is badly utilized so as to perpetuate impunity. In our understanding, such decisions, though they may constitute a positive step, are manifestly insufficient in the light of the norms of protection of the American Convention, bearing in mind the general duty of the States Parties of guaranteeing the free and full exercise of the protected rights. 8. It is for this reason that we consider indispensable to link expressis verbis - in the resolutory point n. 1 of the present Judgment - the violation of Article 4 of the Convention to the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of it, in conformity with the jurisprudence constante of this Tribunal. If one were not to accept the wide scope (encompassing all the rights protected by the Convention) of the general obligation, immediate and of fundamental importance, of guaranteeing the protected rights, set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, one would be depriving this latter of its effects in domestic law. 9. It is not at all surprising that the general and fundamental duty of Article 1(1) of the American Convention finds a parallel in other treaties of human rights4 and of 3. IACtHR, Series C, n. 49, p. 20, par. 47. 4. V.g., Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(1), Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles