10 37. Therefore, the present case does not deal with determining the lack of proportionality of the attack and the weapons (of war) used, since these (one and the other) were already conclusively forbidden. There was no armed conflict, there was no riot in the prison, there was no rebellion among the inmates; they were in a complete state of defenselessness. The attack brutally perpetrated, with heavy war artillery, was a cold-blooded massacre, which sought to exterminate people deprived of their liberty and in a complete state of defenselessness. 38. The international aggravated illicit had already been perpetrated and immediately constituted the State’s aggravated international responsibility. Within the context of the present case of the Prison of Castro Castro, the representation of the victims and their next of kin, through their common intervener (Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta), also a victim of this specific case, captured, besides the facts (cf. supra), the legal grounds applicable, with greater precision and success than the Commission, with regard to this specific matter. 39. This may not go unnoticed and it constituted for me a encouraging fact, since, - as I have been insisting for years in the bosom of this Court and in my books, 26 - the true plaintiff before the Court are the petitioners (and not the Commission), who, as indicated in the present case, have reached a level of maturity considered sufficient to present their arguments and evidence in an autonomous manner, not only in factual matters, but also in juridical subjects (cf. supra), and in some cases – as is the present case – with greater precision and success than the Commission Therefore, the paternalistic and anachronistic vision that in the past stated that the petitioners always needed a body such as the Commission to “represent them” has been completely overcome. Not always. The present case proves it beyond doubt. VI. The Recurrence of the State’s Crime: the Forgotten Juridical Thought. 40. The bombing of the Castro Castro Prison was a premeditated massacre, planned and executed by State agents, from the highest hierarchy of the State’s power up to the members of the police force. It was, as was previously stated, a crime of State. Once more this Court decided, through the present Judgment, on a crime of State, whose occurrence is much more frequent than what one can imagine. The crimes of State that have reached international justice are a microcosmos of everyday atrocities in different continents, which have not yet been able to be brought before the contemporary international courts. 41. The existence and frequent occurrence of crimes of State are, in my opinion, unquestionable. That is what I have been warning about, in the bosom of this Court, - and before the apparent mental lethargy of an ample and insensitive current of contemporary legal international doctrine, - in, v.g., my successive Concurring Opinions in the cases of Myrna Mack versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.25.2003), Plan de Sánchez Massacre versus Guatemala (Judgments of 04.29.2004 and 11.19.2004), of the Mapiripán Massacre versus Colombia (Judgment of 03.07.2004), of the massacre of the Moiwana Community versus Suriname (Judgment of 06.15.2005), of Almonacid Arellano et al. versus Chile (Judgment of 09.26.2006), of Goiburú et al. versus Paraguay (Judgment of . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. III, Porto Alegre/Brasil, S.A. Fabris Ed., pp. 27-117 y 447-497; A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, Santiago, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 2001, pp. 317-374; A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto, 2001, pp. 9-104. 26