"They warn against responding to crimes committed by nonState entities (including terrorist groups) with crimes perpetrated by the State itself: the results are invariably the disruption of the rule of law (État de droit), social decomposition, killings of innocent people, impunity and corruption."52 In the same line of thought, I added in my Concurring Opinion in the case of Acosta Calderón versus Ecuador (Judgment of 06.24.2005), that “The serious evils or our times, - drug trafficking, terrorism, organized crime, among so many others, - must be combated from within the Law, since they can not simply be confronted with their own weapons: said evils may only be overcome from within the Law." (para. 8) 82. At the same time, the victims of violations to human rights that result from terrorist acts can find themselves in different juridical situations if said acts have been perpetrated, on one hand, by mere individuals or clandestine or non-identified agents or, on the other hand, by agents of the State itself. Both types of victims are, all of them, under the protection of the Law, even when the applicable law is different in one case and the other. The concerning contemporary diversification of the sources of the violations to human rights does not because of that deprive or remove the victims from the protection of the Law, which is due to them in any and all circumstances. 83. The victims of violations to human rights attributable to the State are protected by the regulations of International Human Rights Law (along with the rights enshrined in the constitution), which precisely determines the State’s international responsibility, - while the victims of terrorist acts attributable to non-state agents or groups are protected by the regulations of criminal law, which precisely determines the criminal responsibility of individuals, and whose application must be pursuant to the international human rights regulations binding to the State in question. Thus, nobody is removed from the protection of the Law, even when the applicable law may be different according to the circumstances of each specific case. 84. Both the State through its powers or agents, as well as simple individuals (even clandestine or non-identified agents), are compelled to not violate the rights inherent to human beings. Said obligation is enshrined, in the human rights treaties and treaties of International Humanitarian Law (that are binding to the State in question), as well as the regulations of domestic criminal law (that must be applied pursuant to those treaties). The victims of terrorist acts or their next of kin can seek justice through criminal law. As has been stated in a recent study on the subject, "The issue of the obligations of the non-State actor as regards the right to life hardly arises in practice. Taking a life is clearly illegal under national law and there would normally be no reason to raise this before a national court in terms of human rights law."53 . Cf., e.g., inter alia, Commission on Truth and Reconciliation [CVR], Final Report – General Conclusions, Lima/Peru, CVR, 2003, pp. 11-20, 30 and 34-43, and cf. pp. 24 and 26-29; and for a recent evaluation, cf. Defensoría del Pueblo [DP], A Dos Años de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación, Lima/Perú, DP/Informe Defensorial n. 97, 2005, pp. 17-333. 51 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, "International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium - General Course on Public International Law - Part I", 316 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de la Haye (2005) p. 431. 52 . 53 A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors, op. cit. supra n.