2 facts which have taken place since. Therefore, would acknowledgment allows for a for a distinction, providing more clarity, to the undisputed facts of the case and, therefore, deems them as proven, especially when some of them, particularly those referring to the context in which they developed in regard to Maria Claudia Garcia de Gelman and María García Macarena Gelman, are at this stage of historical development, "public and notorious facts" and therefore there is no need for them to be repeated, developed, or proven in the case. Also, it is possible that one narration of the facts in the judgment at hand, and carried out prior to the partial acknowledgment made by the State, would have made it possible to define more precisely those facts that occurred before the month where they were indicated as being effectively recognized, thereby further considering the scope of such a unilateral act. The foregoing leads to the third observation, namely, that said acknowledgment would center the discussion around that which occurred during the democratic reign that the State has had since 1985 to date, and particularly, in regard to the application, in the case at issue and in terms of that period, of the Expiry Law. Under this perspective, it must be taken into account that, in regard to the origin of laws and their possible international unlawfulness, determined pursuant to International Law, and as a consequence, regardless of what Domestic Law provides, 2 the State incurs international responsibility for any fact attributable to it and that constitutes a violation of its international obligations. For said purposes, it is considered an act of the State pursuant to International Law, in particular, international custom, 3 the behavior of any body of the State, be it that it exercises legislative, executive, judicial powers, or powers of any other type. 4 From this, it is evident, as a consequence, that for an action deemed to be internationally unlawful to be attributable to the State, it merely needs to be carried out by any State body, among these, those that carry out legislative functions, to which the direct pronouncements of the citizenry related to the approval or ratification of a law could be deemed as part of these functions, and as such, that it, in the exercise of its powers, constitutes a part of the legislative body. So as to encompass more, and in what regards actions that are attributable to the State, the pertinent State body may also exercise powers of “any other type,” that is, distinct from those that are executive, legislative, or judicial, which could include, among others, those that correspond to democracy. 2 Article 3 of the Draft Articles prepared by the International Commission on International Law of the United Nations on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, encompassed in Resolution approved by the General Assembly [on the basis of the Report of the Sixth Commission (A/56/589 and Corr.1)] 56/83. State Responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, 85th plenary session, December 12, 2001, Official Documents of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 and corrections (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2). 2 Ibid., Paras. 72 and 73. "Characterization of an act of the State as internationally wrongful. The qualification of the act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law." Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties: International law and the observance of treatises. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” 3 Expressed in the Draft Articles Prepared for the International Law Commission of the UN on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 4 “Article 4.1 of the same text: “The conduct of any State bodyshall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the bodyexercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as a bodyof the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.”