14 by the growing number of publications by the survivors of massacres that were State crimes. 42. There is irrefutable historic evidence that broad segments of the population acquiesced to and, at times, participated in some of the most serious State crimes (as a result of a prolonged process of indoctrination, at times intergenerational, and of propaganda on a vast scale). 59 I am not trying to suggest that this is a common trait of all State crimes; however, I do maintain that State crimes, planned and executed by the State and perpetrated in keeping with State policies (which vary in each case), can be attributed to the State as a juridical person of international public law, and entail unavoidable judicial consequences for the State (such as punitive damages, as a form of reparation). 43. In my opinion, the State does not constitute an “abstract entity” – as some traditional international and criminal legal doctrine insists – particularly, in the case of the perpetration of international crimes and offenses. It assembles a whole structure of repression and violence, within the framework of which international illegal acts are committed. One factor that has not been noted – or has been insufficiently taken into account to date – relates to the considerable difficulty of dismantling or “demobilizing” these different structures (for example, secret police, information and “intelligence” or informer services, death squads, “paramilitary groups,” civil patrols, police battalions, State security agents, clandestine prisons, and other similar ones). 60 44. But this is almost never mentioned. The truth is that crimes have been committed using these structures of repression, not only in the name of the State, but by the State itself, through its own agents or third parties supported by the latter (the “procurement” of cruelty). And they have been committed with the tolerance or acquiescence of society at times. In short, contrary to what has been thought over recent centuries, “the king can - indeed - do wrong”, and societas delinquere potest. VI. The right of access to justice lato sensu and the indivisibility between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention. 45. Another of the central issues examined by the Court in this judgment is access to justice lato sensu, consubstantiated in the indivisibility between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention, which I have been maintaining within this Court for many years. In this regard, in my recent and extensive separate opinion in the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (judgment of January 31, 2006), I dealt, in a Escuadrones de la Muerte en El Salvador, 2nd ed., San Salvador, Edit. Jaraguá, 2004, pp. 11-300; and cf. also A. Guadalupe Martínez, Las Cárceles Clandestinas, 8th ed., San Salvador, UCA Edit., 2004, pp. 27456; S. Carranza (ed.), Mártires de la UCA, 6a. ed., San Salvador, UCA Edit., 2001, pp. 15-457; J.M. Tojeira, El Martirio Ayer y Hoy - Testimonio Radical de Fe y Justicia, 2nd. ed., San Salvador, UCA Edit., 2005, pp. 29-187; L. Binford, El Mozote: Vidas y Memorias, San Salvador, UCA Edit., 2005, pp. 15-338. 59 . D.J. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners - Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, N.Y., Vintage, 1997 [re-ed.], pp. 5 ff. 60 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "General Course on Public International Law - International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium", 316 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (2005), chap. XV (to be published).