victims, especially in a fast mutating world, a little "livré au hasard".10 Even to defend the memory – as a form of reparation – we must turn to justice. The justice of Athena in the Oresteia, is imposed to guarantee the due reparation of the damages suffered by all of them, - in our times the victims of both the terrorism of the acts of clandestine agents as well as the State’s terrorism. Within this Court, I have pointed out the duty to remember in my Concurring Opinion in the case of Gutiérrez Soler versus Colombia (Judgment of 09.12.2005). 22. Even though the applicable law may be different in different situations, of perpetration of crimes attributable to state agents or non-state groups (cf. infra), all the victims are under the protective cloak of the Law (precisely to avoid the tragic scene of Agamemnon’s bloody tunic). And all those responsible, both the non-State groups as well as the State itself, are covered by the Law (the rule of Law, the préeminence du Droit, in a democratic society), nobody is excluded from the protection or prescriptions (even punitive for the crimes committed) of the Law. The juridical relationships themselves may not be considered in abstracto, making abstraction of the parties; the "administration" of justice cannot lose sight of the parties. 23. For years, within this Court, I have stated the imperative need to look for a greater approximation between International Human Rights Law and contemporary Criminal Law (v.g., in my Concurring Opinions in the cases of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala, Judgment of 09.18.2003; of Goiburú et al. versus Paraguay, Judgment of 09.22.2006; of Almonacid Arellano versus Chile, Judgment of 09.26.2006). I have done so precisely to guarantee the realization of Justice in any and all circumstances, and face a new disturbing phenomenon for the (international) protection of human rights: that of the diversification of the sources of violations of human rights. 24. In synthesis, all victims have the right to reparations for the suffering they underwent, and all perpetrating agents of illegal acts (national and international) must assume the juridical consequences of the illegal acts committed. In what refers to human rights treaties, the contemporary juridical doctrine itself is currently making an effort to determine its effects with regard to third parties,11 seeking precisely to guarantee a comprehensive protection of the human rights enshrined. 25. In this Concurring Opinion in the present Interpretation of the Judgment in the case of the Castro Castro Prison versus Peru (2007), I had to evoke my reflections enshrined in another two of my Concurring Opinions in two cases of massacres regarding to different States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights, specifically, the case of the Mapiripán Massacre, regarding Colombia (Judgment of 09.15.2005), and the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, regarding Guatemala (Reparations, . Primo Levi, Le devoir de mémoire (1982), Paris, Fayard, 2006, p. 38; and cf. Primo Levi, "Si c'est un homme" (1947), in Oeuvres, Paris, Éd. R. Laffont, 2005, pp. 5-157; M. Belpoliti y R. Gordon (eds.), The Voice of Memory - Interviews (1961-1987) with Primo Levi, N.Y., New Press, 2001, pp. 223 and 255. 10 . Cf., e.g., D. Spielmann, L'effet potentiel de la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme entre personnes privées, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1995, pp. 17-89; A. Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors, Oxford/Florence, Academy of European Law (European University Institute)/Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 25-566. 11