3 Therefore, also all of the citizenry, in the exercise of this or legislative functions, could infringe a rule of International Law, and consequently, compromise the State's international responsibility.5 It is for this reason that it is deemed that the mere existence of a democratic regimen does not guarantee, per se, the permanent respect of International Law, including the International Law of Human Rights. In this way it has been considered by the Inter-American Democratic Charter,6 which notes in its Article 3 that the respect for human rights is an essential element of a democratic society and in its Article 7 that it is indispensable for the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights. It also reiterates this in Article 8 that every person who believes their rights to have been violated has the right to file a complaint or petition before the Inter-American System of Human Rights, to which it only excludes, for these cases, the remedy before the political InterAmerican bodies charged with defending the effective exercise of a representative democracy. Related to the foregoing and also worth noting is the attitude assumed by the State, from June 23, 2005, of excluding this case from the application of the Expiry Law. On that day, the government of President Mr. Tabaré Vazquez informed the Supreme Court of Uruguay that the facts concerning this case were not covered by that Law, thereby allowing, the resumption of the court proceedings aimed at determining the facts and possible punishment of those responsible. Thus, this body of law ceased to be, from that date, as stated in this judgment, an obstacle. In a way that, therefore, the action of the State created a new situation where, at least in regard to this case, it stopped violating its international obligation to investigate and adjusted, for that matter, its conduct to comply with International Law; left pending, however, is the opportunity for the exercise of justice and its final resolution in the legislation. Also, another separate observation should be considered regarding the participation of Argentina in the events in question. While it is true that the application in this in this case was filed solely in connection with the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and that, in the allegations, the Commission reiterated the foregoing, excluding said State from the suit at hand, to which the Court lacks jurisdiction over it,7 it is also true that international law addresses the situation where a third State has cooperated in the illicit act,8to which it may have been more convenient to expressly 5 This would be even more evident when the norm of international law that is violated is jus cogens, that is, the meaning of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and that also includes that which is custom in the matter, imperative norms of general international law, and therefore, accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm where no derogation is permitted and which can only be modified by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. 6 Resolution of the General Assembly of the OAS approved on September 11, 2001. 7 Art 61(1) of the Convention: “1. Only the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” 8 Article 16, Draft Articles of the International Law Commission of the UN on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Article 16. Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act. A State which aids or assists another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter is internationally responsible for doing so if: a) that State does so with knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act; and b) the act would be internationally wrongful if committed by that State.” Article 47. Plurality of responsible States. 1. Where several States are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each State may be invoked in relation to that act.