36 incompatible with the duty to prevent actions that may affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression71. 128. The Court has long held that to establish that there has been an abridgment of the rights embodied in the Convention it is not necessary to establish, as would be the case in domestic criminal law, the guilt of its perpetrators or their intent, and it is also not necessary to individually identify the agents deemed responsible for said abridgments.72 It is sufficient that the State has failed to comply with a treaty obligation. 129. Besides, the attribution of international responsibility to a State for acts by State agents or private individuals must be established based on the specificities and circumstances of each case,73 and also on the corresponding special obligations that are applicable. Although this attribution is made on the basis of international law, the many different forms and characteristics that the facts may assume in situations that violate human rights makes it almost illusory to expect international law to define specifically – or rigorously or numerus clausus – all the hypotheses or situations – or structures – for attributing to the State each of the possible and eventual acts or omissions of State agents or individuals.74 130. As to the actions or omissions that may be attributed to the State, in general terms, any abridgment of the human rights recognized by the Convention that may be attributed, according to the rules of international Law, to actions or omissions by any public authority constitutes an act attributable to the State, as it is a principle of International Law that the State is responsible for the acts of its agents carried out in their official capacity and by their omissions, even if they act outside the limits of their sphere of competence or in violation of domestic law.75 In other words, international responsibility generates immediately with the internationally unlawful act attributed to the State or bodies of the State, whatever their hierarchical level.76 131. The Internacional Court of Justice has held that the statements emanating from high-ranking official political figures are of particular probative value when they acknowledge facts or conducts of the State,77 but they can also generate obligations for the 71 IACHR. Report on the Merits Nº 61/06 of October 26, 2006. para. 277 to 281 (records of evidence, volume I, pages 63-65). 72 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 33, para. 173; Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 156; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 22, para 110. 73 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 22, para. 113; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 78; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 68, para. 123. 74 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 22, para. 113; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 68, para. 116. 75 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 33, para. 173; Case of the White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 37, para. 91; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití, supra note 24, para 43; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79. 76 Cf. Case of the Constitucional Court v. Perú, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C. Nº 71, para. 109; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití, supra note 24, para 43; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 75, para 79. Cf. Case of La Cantura v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Supra note 72, para. 156. 77 Cf. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 390, para. 64.