75 142. On the question of whether the alleged victims’ representatives may include facts or rights other than those included in the original application, this Court has previously held that: [w]ith respect to inclusion of rights other than those already encompassed by the application filed by the Commission, the Court deems that the applicants can invoke said rights. It is they who are entitled to all the rights embodied in the American Convention, and not admitting this would be an undue restriction of their status as subjects of International Human Rights Law. It is understood that the above, pertaining to other rights, adheres to the facts already contained in the application. 107 143. Therefore, the Court will examine the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which the alleged victims’ representatives asserted in their written brief of pleadings, motions and evidence. 144. It is a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, embodied in international human rights law, that every State is internationally responsible for any action or omission committed by any of its branches of power or organs in violation of internationally recognized rights. 108 In the case of the actions or omissions of domestic courts, Article 8 of the Convention spells out the scope of that principle whereby the international responsibility of a State is engaged by the actions or omissions of any and all State organs. 109 145. States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation, and ensure proper application of, effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations. 110 146. In similar cases this Court has held that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine domestic proceedings” 111 to determine whether they are compatible with the American Convention. 147. With regard to the criminal proceedings, when addressing the matter of judicial guarantees, also known as procedural guarantees, the Court has established that all the Article 8 requirements, which “are designed to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof”, 112 must be complied with; 107 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 134; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 224; and the Case of “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of 28 February 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155. 108 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 142; the Case of “Five Pensioners”, supra note 107, para. 163; and the Case of “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 220. 109 Case of “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 108, para. 220. 110 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79; Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 59; and the Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 135. 111 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 200; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 120; and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of 25 November 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 188. 112 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 118; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 202; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 124; and Habeas Corpus in Emergency