the classification of Mr. Rodríguez Burgos as an agent of the State is verified, nonetheless, during the course of the events he was dressed as a civilian. 130. The Commission observes that with regard to the conduct of Soldier Rodríguez Burgos, the controversy submitted by the State consists, on one side, in determining whether his conduct was disobedience of his instructions, or acting outside of these, thereby compromising or not its international responsibility. Likewise, with respect to the rest of the agents of the State, in light of the indications of the State, it corresponds to identify whether they effectively adopted measures to prevent the acts. i) With regard to the participation of Soldier Rodríguez Burgos and the international responsibility of the State 131. The Commission recalls that since the first of its judgments, the Inter-American Court has stated that “the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice.”208 As detailed by the International Law Commission in resolution 56/83 on the Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts: The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.209 132. Therefore, the Commission considers that the international responsibility of a State cannot be subject to nor is it dependent on the classification of the events domestically or the malice or wrongful modalities upon which its agents acted, rather it depends on the existence of an internationally ilicit fact attributable to the State. In this regard, the definition of “act of service” used domestically at the time to determine if the State was or not responsible for the acts of its agents is not relevant to determine whether there is international responsibility for the violation of a norm on the part of its agents. 133. With regards to the conduct of the State agents who engage the responsibility of the State, the Commission recalls with regard to internationally ilicit acts that according to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: [T]he impairment of the human rights recognized by the Convention which, pursuant to the international legal standards, may be attributed to the action or failure to act by any public official, is an act attributable to the State which entails its liability under the terms of the Convention.210 134. The Inter-American Court has established that: [U]nder any circumstance in which a State body or official or a public institution unduly impairs one of such rights, either as the result of an act or failure to act there is an alleged non-compliance of the duty to respect the rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention.211 135. The Commission considers that in light of the preceding, it is the duty of the State in the present case to demonstrate that the deprivation of the life of Mr. Uva Velandia caused by the act of Soldier 208 para. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of 26 June 1987. Series C No. 1, 209 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 56/83 Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, AG/RES/56/83, 28 January 2002. See Article 3. 210 I/A Court on H.R. Case Ximenes Lopes v. Brasil, C Series. No. 149, Judgment July 4, 2006, para. 83. 211 I/A Court on H.R. Case Ximenes Lopes v. Brasil, C Series. No. 149, Judgment July 4, 2006, para. 84.