13 the American Convention.48 The Court limits itself to the foregoing in this judgment. Under the Convention, the State’s international responsibility arises when it violates the general obligations of an erga omnes nature to respect and ensure respect for – guarantee – the norms of protection, and to ensure the effectiveness of the rights embodied therein, in all circumstances and with regard to all persons, as established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. Special duties arise from these general obligations, which can be determined in function of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, either based on his personal situation or owing to the specific situation in which he finds himself.49 Thus, any violation of the human rights established in the Convention that can be attributed, according to the rules of international law, to an act or omission of any public authority of a State Party, constitutes a fact that can be attributed to the State, which involves its international responsibility in the terms of the Convention and according to general international law.50 38. In these terms, the Court underscores the obligation of the States to protect all persons by preventing, avoiding, prosecuting and punishing offenses; by investigating and, if applicable, punishing those responsible for them, and by keeping the public order, particularly in the case of the serious facts that may have occurred in February 2004 in La Scierie, St. Marc, Haiti, which gave rise to the criminal proceedings in which Mr. Neptune was charged. However, it is opportune to recall that, irrespective of the nature or gravity of the crime prosecuted, the investigation of the facts and the eventual trial of specific persons should be carried out within the limits and according to the procedures that permit public safety to be preserved, with full respect for the human rights.51 39. On the other hand, during the public hearing held by the Court in the instant case, the State’s representative declared, referring to the deficiencies in the system of administration of justice in that country, that: “given that since 1987 [Haiti is undergoing] a phase of transition, that judicial body was never established [sic]. To date, there has never been a law to implement the Articles of the Constitution [that refer to the High Court of Justice].” In particular, the State and the representative have indicated that the facts of this case occurred under the interim Government mentioned above and, when referring to the actual juridical situation of Mr. Neptune, the State indicated that the current Government has no intention whatsoever of prosecuting him (infra para. 73). 40. It is the Court’s case law that the conditions that a country is undergoing, no matter how difficult they may be, do not constitute grounds for the States Parties to the American 48 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 83; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 47, para. 93, and Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 62. 49 Cf. The “Mapiripán Massacre” Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 36, para. 111; case of the La Rochela Massacre, supra note 43, para. 67, and Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 85. See also, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 34, paras. 164-168, and Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 50 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 34, paras. 164, 169 and 170; Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 38, para. 60, and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 79. 51 Cf. similarly, Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 34, para. 154; Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 89; Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 47, para. 96; and The Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 39, para. 240.