87 value in this proceeding, as it constitutes an acknowledgment of the key facts to establish the abridgment of said rights of the victims and their next of kin. Nevertheless, given its partial nature, it does not encompass facts such as those specified regarding the circumstances of the death or disappearance of the victims or the level of connivance and complicity that existed between the paramilitary and members of the Security Forces in carrying out the massacre. Considerations of the Court 101. Based on the facts that have been established and the evidence tendered in the instant case, the Court will now address the scope and juridical effects of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State (supra paras. 34 and 37), in the framework of the responsibility of the State resulting from violations of the American Convention. 102. After said acknowledgment, in its final pleadings, both oral and written, the State pointed out that its responsibility derives from the irregular actions of its agents, but does not reflect a policy of the State or of its institutions, and it does not accept being attributed the acts of the self-defense groups as if they were its agents. Colombia based its arguments especially on the rules regarding attribution of acts contained in the United Nations International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 103. To decide on the issue raised by the State regarding international responsibility, it is necessary to recall the nature of the American Convention in the framework of International Law, as well as the principles that form the basis of its application and interpretation. 104. Since its first cases, the Court has based its jurisprudence on the special nature of the American Convention in the framework of International Human Rights Law. Said Convention, like other human rights treaties, is inspired by higher shared values (focusing on protection of the human being), they have specific oversight mechanisms, they are applied according to the concept of collective guarantees, they embody obligations that are essentially objective, and their nature is special vis-à-vis other treaties that regulate reciprocal interests among the States Parties.179 105. This special nature of said treaties and their collective implementation mechanism180 entail the need to apply and interpret their provisions in accordance with their object and purpose, so as to ensure that the States Party guarantee compliance with them and their effet utile in their respective domestic legal systems.181 This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of the human 179 See Case of Baena Ricardo. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 96; Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 94; Case of the Constitutional Court. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 41, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 42. 180 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 69; Case of Baena Ricardo. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 99, and Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 83.