56 abduction and illegal retention by the kaibil Santos Lopez Alonso, was maintained until 2002, when he recovered the name given to him by his parents. 195. The Court considers that the State had the obligation to adopt all positive measures necessary to guarantee that Ramiro Osorio Cristales could fully enjoy the right to live with his biological family, as well as his right to the name given to him by his parents. These rights, and the corresponding obligation by the State to guarantee that their enjoyment and exercise are permanent, exist for the State since May 25, 1978 when Guatemala ratified the American Convention. However, this Court will rule on a possible violation of these rights only after March 9, 1987, date when the State recognized this Court’s jurisdiction, based on the factual situation existing after that date. 196. As the Court has already established, the State was aware of the existence of Ramiro Osorio Cristales and of the situation he was in (supra para. 181 and 182) However, until 1999 it omitted every measure to guarantee Ramiro Osorio Cristales his rights to a family and to a name. 197. The Court reiterates that, according to the rules on the international responsibility of the State applicable in International Law on Human Rights, the action or omission by any public authority constitutes an act attributable to the State that compromises its responsibility under the terms established in the American Convention223. In these provisions, in order to establish whether there has been a violation of the rights set forth in Convention, it is not necessary to determine, as in the domestic criminal law, the guilt of the perpetrators or their premeditation, and it is also not necessary to individually identify the agents to whom the violations are attributable224. It is sufficient to have an obligation by the State which it has failed to comply with225. 198. Although in 1999 the State approached Ramiro Osorio Cristales requesting his statement as evidence produced before trial on the events of the Las Dos Erres Massacre, 226 prior to that date it had not performed any activity meant to reunite him with his biological family or return his name and identity. This omission by the State delayed and even denied Ramiro Osorio Cristales the opportunity to reestablish ties with his family and to recover his name and last names. It thus failed to comply with the obligation to adopt positive measures to promote the family unit, to ensure the full enjoyment and exercise of the right to a family, and to guarantee Ramiro Osorio Cristales’ right to the name, which, as a means of personal identification and relation to the person’s biological family, particularly affects his private and family life. This failure to comply is particularly grave because it is part of a systematic pattern of tolerance and lack of interest by the State, which did not adopt the necessary positive measures for at least two decades. 223 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 164; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 120, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 37. 224 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 173; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 31, para. 128, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 73. 225 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 134 and 172; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador, supra note 109, para. 104, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 73. 226 The alleged activity by the State to locate Ramiro Osorio Cristales in 1999 was questioned by him in his statements during the private hearing. According to these statements, the initiative and mian activity that led to finding him 1999 was by FAMDEGUA, not by the State. In this regard, several reports indicated that the national authorities did not take measures to establish the identity and whereabouts of the “adopted” children, which remained separated from their biological family and registered with the names of their “adoptive” families, until their families, or FAMDEGUA in a lot of cases, were able to find them after years of searching for them.