omissions of the domestic judicial organs in light of the guarantees protected in Article 8 of this treaty. 376 The Court recalls that it is a basic principle of the international rule of law, reflected in international human rights law, that every State is internationally responsible for each and every act or omission of any of its powers or organs that violates the internationally recognized rights. 377 258. When referring to the judicial guarantees protected by Article 8 of the Convention, also known as procedural guarantees, the Court has established that, in order for these guarantees to truly exist, all the requirements that serve to protect, ensure and assert the ownership or exercise of a right must be observed; 378 in other words, the conditions that must be met to ensure the adequate defense of those whose rights or obligations are being considered by the courts. 379 This provision of the Convention establishes a system of guarantees that condition the exercise of the ius puniendi of the State and that seek to ensure that the accused is not subjected to arbitrary decisions, because “the due guarantees” must be observed that ensure the right to due process in the proceedings in question. 380 Furthermore, the Court has indicated that any persons subject to a trial of any nature before an organ of the State must have the guarantee that the said organ acts in accordance with the procedure established by law to hear and decide the case submitted to it. 381 259. Regarding the non bis in idem principle recognized in Article 8(4) of the Convention, the Court has established that this principle seeks to protect the rights of individuals who have been prosecuted for certain acts, to ensure that they will not be tried again for the same acts. Contrary to the formula used by other international instruments for the protection of human rights (for example, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(7) of which refers to the same “offense”), the American Convention uses the expression “the same cause,” which is a broader term that benefits the person accused or prosecuted. 382 260. The Court has maintained repeatedly that the elements of the situation regulated by Article 8(4) of the Convention include a first trial that culminates in a final judgment acquitting the accused. 383 The Court has also indicated that criminal proceedings are a single act implemented in different stages, 384 including the ordinary appeals that are filed against the judgment. 385 261. In the instant case, the Court notes that Ms. J. was acquitted by the “faceless” Higher Court of Lima of the offenses of “terrorism” and membership in terrorist organizations” on June 18, 1993. Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 376 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 220, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 377 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 164, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 110. 378 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 147, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 191. 379 Cf. Judicial guarantees en States of emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 28, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 191. 380 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 191. 381 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 191. 382 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 66, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 121. 383 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 137, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 122. 384 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 161, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 122. 385 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 66, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 122. 77