64 199. The Court recalls that the purpose of its mandate is the application of the American Convention and other treaties that grant it jurisdiction. It is not for the Court to establish individual responsibilities,234 determination of which falls under the jurisdiction of the domestic or the international criminal courts; rather its mandate is to assess the facts submitted to it and to assess them in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction based on the evidence presented by the parties.235 200. Nevertheless, the Court deems that an incorrect assessment at the domestic level regarding the juridical contents of the forced disappearance of persons hinders the effective conduct of the criminal proceeding to the prejudice of the obligation of the State to investigate and the right to access to justice in favor of the victims. In this respect, crimes such as the unlawful deprivation of liberty do not satisfy the State’s duty to punish a pluri-offensive conduct of rights like the forced disappearance of persons.236 201. Likewise, the Court has established in another case against the State of Bolivia, that, because it dealt with a crime of permanent execution, namely, that its termination is prolonged in time, when the codification of the crime of forced disappearance of persons enters into force, because the criminal conduct is maintained, the new law results applicable, without it representing its retroactive application.237 In this same sense, rulings have been ordered by several courts of the highest branches of the States of the continent of the Americas, such as the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela and the Constitutional Court of Colombia,238 States that, as Bolivia, have ratified the Convention on Forced Disappearance. 202. On the other hand, the Court deems it is pertinent to repeat that with regard to judicial practices, this Tribunal has established in its jurisprudence, that it is aware that the domestic judges and tribunals are subject to the rule of law and that, therefore, they are compelled to apply the regulations in force within the legal system.239 But, once a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State’s apparatus, are also submitted to it, which compels them to make sure that the 234 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 134; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 36, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 41. 235 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra note 195, para. 87, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 11, para. 79, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 41. 236 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 1, para. 181, and Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 231, Considering Clause 39. 237 Cf. Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 231, Considering Clause 38. This was previously mentioned by the Court in the Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 209, para. 87. 238 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, judgment of March 20, 2006, Case file: 111-04, D.D Cayo Rivera Schreiber. Constitutional Court of Peru, judgment of March 18, 2004, case file N.° 2488-2002-HC/TC, para. 26 (At http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2004/02488-2002-HC.html) and judgment of December 9, 2004, case file N.º 2798-04-HC/TC, para. 22 (At: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2005/02798-2004-HC.html). Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 49/2004, Weekly Publication of the Federal Judiciary and its Gazette, Ninth Period, Full Chamber. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-580/02 of July 31, 2002. 239 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 200, para. 124, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 89, para. 173, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 339.