4 of the criminal consequences attributed to the facts, which are binding on the national law-makers, even though the latter may extend the criminal protection afforded to the relevant legal interest. That would create a disruption between the State’s duty to comply with the international mandate of criminal protection for that given interest or right, and the decision of the domestic criminal law-maker who has established the crime definition. Such disruption might entail incompatibility and, as the case may be, give rise to international responsibility. E) Expert bodies 17. In the instant case, the Court has taken into consideration the arguments raised by the parties in connection with the participation of a professional body (the Honor Tribunal) that was asked to issue an opinion on certain aspects of the medical treatment administered to the patient. This draws attention towards the role played by the professional bodies in charge of making determinations on ethical or technical matters. It should be noted that these might be legally relevant to the members of the relevant association, to third parties asserting professional responsibility or a right to access (professionally certified) information regarding certain facts, and, basically, for the formation of more-or-less conclusive criteria concerning the provision of highly important services (as the protection of life and humane treatment, through health care) and the potential expectations of society in this regard. 18. A distinction must certainly be drawn between the opinions of a private association existing and acting through the sole initiative of its members (even though subject to the rules governing this kind of collective person: usually, civil norms), the decisions of which carry mild implications, and those of entities or institutions created by virtue of a State decision (through a law, for instance) attributing to them certain powers over the conduct and rights of their members. 19. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyze the possible impact or implications of such opinions on third parties who are not members of the relevant entity, based on whether such parties actually hold certain effective rights or are mere witnesses and, in a way, the “powerless” targets of the entity’s decisions. It is also necessary to determine whether the decisions of any such entity condition, subordinate or influence the performance of the duties or the exercise of the powers attributed to the formal organs of the State for the performance of inherently public functions such as the administration of justice or the oversight of health-care providers. 20. Where there is no such conditioning – as noted by the Court in the Case of Albán-Cornejo et al. –, the State is required to act further to its powers, with no further requirement or delay. Otherwise, the condition needs to be analyzed (as it may amount to a requirement for admissibility, a procedural obstacle or a prejudicial matter), and the appropriateness of maintaining a condition that interferes with the rights of a third-party needs to be considered from the perspective of what the law ought to be. 21. Any possible reflections in this case would cover, with the relevant specificity, not only professional associations –in the case at hand, a medial association–, which are traditional union defense and supervision bodies, lato sensu, but also other