14 Casas, leader of the Affiliated Center and personal friend of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, who […] [would have] turned into an informant (in writing) of those who belonged to and conducted subversive activities inside the university” Finally, the State offered the statement rendered by a senior officer of the Peruvian Army before the Office of the Third Supra-Provincial Prosecutor, in which he denies any participation in the disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro.37 36. In the first place, the Court considers it is important to repeat, as in previous cases,38 that this Court is not a criminal tribunal before which an individual's responsibility for crimes committed may be debated. This applies to the instant case, in the sense that the case is not concerned with Mr. Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro's innocence or guilt in certain facts attributed to him by the State or the alleged connection with the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso, but with the determination of the compliance with the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention and the responsibility of the State for the facts at dispute. The Tribunal limits the instant Judgment to this. 37. Within the framework of the Convention, the international responsibility of States occurs when the State violates the general obligations, erga omnes obligations, to respect and ensure respect- guarantee- for the protection norms and ensure the effectiveness of the rights enshrined under any situation, to all persons, as stipulated in Articles 1(1) and 2 of said treaty. From these general obligations derive special duties, which can be ascertained based on the particular needs of protection of the legal person, considering his personal condition or the specific situation in which he is.39 In this way, any acts or omissions of any of the State Party’s powers or organs, under International Law, that violate the human rights enshrined in the American Convention constitute a fact attributable to the State that compromises its international responsibility, under the terms stipulated in the Convention and pursuant to general International Law.40 38. Most of the State's answer to the application deals with doctrinal references about the valid requirements for the production of evidence in order to sustain that for the Court to validly use it, certain criteria must be considered, even though it acknowledged that it is possible to establish the international responsibility of a State, as well as the attribution of a forced disappearance to state agents, based on evidentiary items. In this regard, the Court refers to its case-law regarding 37 Cf. Statement of the Chief of the Peruvian Army, Hernán Roberto Sánchez Valdivia rendered before the Office of the Third Supra-Provincial Prosecutor on June 15, 2007 (record of evidence, Volume IX, appendix 14 to the brief of response to the application, pages 3612 - 3617). 38 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 134; Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. See also, Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 37; Case of Boyce et al. V. Barbados. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C Nº 169, footnote 37 and case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93. 39 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, para. 111 and 113; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 298; Case of Ríos et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 118. See also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 164-168; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18 of September 17, 2003, Series A N.18, para. 140. 40 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 164, 169, 170 and 173; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 12, para. 91; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 73; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 130.