6 2004.18 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in turn, missed this important specific conceptual point, and that even led the Commission to inappropriately mix the issue of the emergence of the international responsibility of the State with the “principle of subsidiarity,” as it is called (see infra). III. Beyond Subsidiarity: the Interaction between International Law and Domestic Law in the current Sphere of Protection 19. In face of this misunderstanding, I must specify another point, to clarify this conceptual matter and perhaps to provide a better understanding of the issue. In its Report of 11.10.2001 (under Article 50 of the American Convention) on the instant case, the Inter-American Commission argued, somewhat surprisingly, that “not every violation” of human rights committed by the agents of the State entails the international responsibility of the State; according to the Commission’s Report, the State does not incur responsibility if it investigates the facts, punishes those responsible, and provides due reparation. According to the Commission, “the above is explained by the subsidiary nature of the inter-American human rights system.”19 Still according to the Commission, in the instant case, the international responsibility of the State remained because it did not conduct a complete and adequate investigation, and it neither tried nor punished those responsible.20 20. In its oral pleadings at the aforementioned public hearing before this Court on 07.05.2004 the Commission,21 as reported in the instant Judgment of the Court (para. 68), once again inappropriately mixed the origin of the international responsibility of the State with the “subsidiary nature” of international jurisdiction with respect to domestic or national jurisdiction. In my understanding, any violation of a right protected by the American Convention immediately entails the responsibility of the State; the tempus commissi delicti is that when the internationally wrongful act occurred. This gives rise –as consequences of the original violation- to the obligations of the State under the Convention to investigate the facts, punish those responsible, and provide reparations to the victims; if it does not fulfill those obligations, the State commits additional violations to the applicable international law. 21. An ongoing international human rights proceeding is not affected by domestic legal measures taken independently of it and in light of a different applicable law (the domestic or national one); said measures, therefore, do not magically “discharge” the international responsibility already incurred by the State or make it “disappear.” Implementation of said responsibility (at a moment other than its birth) necessarily occurs in light of the provisions of the human rights treaty involved, which is directly applicable in the domestic law of the State responsible for wrongdoing. 18 . I-A Ct of HR, Transcripción de la Audiencia Pública Celebrada los Días 5, 6 and 7 de Mayo de 2004 – Caso de los hermanos Gómez Paquiyauri versus Perú, San Jose, Costa Rica, I-A Ct of HR, 2004, p. 146 (internal distribution). 19 . Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Informe n. 99/01 - Caso n. 11.016 (Perú), doc. OAS/Ser/L/V/II.113/doc.36, of 11.10.2001, pp. 9 and 12-13, paras. 48-49, 59 and 63. 20 . 21 Ibid., pp. 15 and 19, paras. 69 and 87. . See Transcripción de la Audiencia Pública..., op. cit. supra n. (18), pp. 156-157 (internal distribution).