14 Convention to be released from complying with the obligations established therein.52 In this regard, what the Court has established in other cases is applicable: According to the principle of the continuity of the State in international law, responsibility exists irrespective of changes of Government over time and, specifically, from the time of the act that generates responsibility to the time when the act is declared unlawful. The foregoing is also valid in the area of human rights, although, from an ethical or political point of view, the attitude of the new Government is much more respectful of those rights than that of the Government in power when the violations occurred.53 41. Consequently, in relation to the State’s affirmations, the principles of identity or continuity of the State are fundamental when determining its responsibility, irrespective of the political moment in the country when the alleged violations of the provisions of the American Convention occurred. 42. Moreover, the State’s representatives also mentioned during the hearing that, in its current Constitution, Haiti has adopted an institutional structure that includes a separation between the powers of the State (judicial, executive and legislative branches). Based on this and on the autonomy and independence of each power, the State’s representatives argued that “it is not the fault of the Government” if the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal has not yet been notified, because the notification of a judicial decision “is not a State responsibility; it is not a responsibility of the Executive, it is a responsibility of a member of the Judiciary.”54 43. In addition to what the Court has established regarding the origin of the State’s international responsibility, when referring to the principle of the unity of the State in this regard, the Court has established that this responsibility arises from “acts or omissions of any power or organ of the State, irrespective of its rank, that violate the American Convention,”55 and it is generated immediately with the international unlawful act attributed to the State, because it is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts or omissions of its agents in their official capacity, even if they act above and beyond the limits of their competence.56 52 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 207; Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 47, para. 96, and Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 89. 53 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 34, para. 184, and Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 194. 54 Cf. Intervention of the State of Haiti during the public hearing held at the Court on January 30, 2008. (“When a legal decision is issued, it is not the Government, it is not the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for notifying it or ensuring that it is notified; this is the responsibility of the Government Commissioner (Commissaire du Gouvernement); it is not a responsibility of the State, it is not a responsibility of the Executive, it is a responsibility of a member of the Judiciary.”) 55 Cf. The Constitutional Court v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 35, para. 109; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 79, and La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 43, para. 68. 56 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 34, para. 173; The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 40, para. 91; Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Perú, supra note 50, para. 79, and Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 47, para. 104.