3 not in the quest for the common good), or when the State’s public power structure is activated in support of private interests (as frequently occurs nowadays). Thus, the international criminal liability of the individual does not absolve the State. The two complement each other, and this recognition is of crucial importance for the eradication of impunity. As I noted in my separate opinion in the judgment on merits in this case: "The provisions of contemporary international law are addressed directly at the State and its agents; the conduct of both is established and regulated by the latter, and both the State and its agents must be accountable for the consequences of their acts and omissions" (para. 38). II. Time and Law Revisited 11. More than 22 years have elapsed between the time the Plan de Sánchez Massacre occurred on July 18, 1982, and this judgment on reparations that the Inter-American Court has just delivered. More than 22 years have elapsed since this massacre fragmented the Maya-Achí community, damaged its cultural identity, destroyed its family roles, and gave rise to a cultural vacuum. Nevertheless, the surviving victims have stated in their testimonies before this Court that they relive this misfortune “all the time,” that they remember everything as if it had happened “yesterday.” 2 They cannot forget. 12. More than 22 years have elapsed since the victims were obliged to live side by side with the perpetrators. More than 22 years have elapsed of humiliation faced with the difficulty of locating the clandestine cemeteries and exhuming the corpses of the massacre. More than 22 years have elapsed of prolonged denial of justice and the consequent impunity. However, the passage of time has not erased what happened from the memory of the surviving victims. They cannot forget. 13. More than 22 years after the Plan de Sánchez massacre, the defendant State has finally acknowledged its international responsibility for the grave human rights violations 3 in this case and, following the court’s judgment on merits in the instant case, the surviving victims now have a judgment on reparations. During the contentious proceeding before the Court, the State assumed a constructive attitude. But what is the impact of the passage of this extended period (more than 22 years) on the application of law, as regards the reparations that the Court has just ordered? This was precisely the question I asked during the public hearing on reparations before the Court, on April 23 and 24, 2004. 14. My question was motivated by concern about the destruction of the family roles and the fragmentation of the social fabric and cultural identity of the members of the Maya-Achí people who had been victimized, and the consequent “loss of the transmission of oral knowledge” (above all, owing to the massacre of the women and 2 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Transcript of the public hearing on the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on April 23 and 24, 2004, p. 121 (in Spanish, for internal circulation only). 3 . Embodied in Articles 1(1), 5(1) and (2), 8(1), 11, 12(2) and (3), 13(2)(a) and (5), 16(1), 21(1) and (2), 24 and 25 of the American Convention; cf. para. 50 of this judgment.