13 43. Organized and planned by the States, at their most senior levels, State crimes are executed by many individuals complying with a criminal policy of the State in question, constituting authentic State crimes, which immediately involve the international responsibility of both the State in question (in the sphere of international human rights law) and that of the individuals who executed them.45 Hence the importance of preventing them, given their particular gravity, as well as the guarantee of non-repetition (cf. infra). 4. Prevention and guarantee of non-repetition 44. Both international human rights law and international criminal law seek, each in its own way, the prevention and the guarantee of non-repetition of the harmful acts. Both combat impunity. In cases of grave violations, the former determines exemplary reparations (or exemplary damages), as a legal consequence of authentic State crimes. The latter determines penalties for those who, in the name of a State policy, have committed acts of genocide, or crimes against humanity, or war crimes. 45. There is no statute of limitations, typical of domestic law; there is no extinguishment or extinctive prescription in cases of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The Inter-American Court has made its corresponding contribution, as exemplified in its “leading cases” in this regard of Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001) and Bulacio v. Argentina (2003). The respective international tribunals are not bound by res judicata (typical of domestic law) either, because the applicable law is distinct, international human rights law and international criminal law, respectively. 5. Reparatory justice in the confluence of international human rights law and international criminal law 46. Alongside the recognition of the individual’s ownership of rights, arising directly from international law (supra), contemporary legal writings have accepted the existence of obligations also attributed by international law directly to the individual. And – what it significant – grave violations of such rights, for example, by crimes against humanity, involve international individual criminal responsibility, irrespective of the provisions of domestic law on the matter.46 Contemporary developments in international criminal law have had a direct effect on the emergence of individual international criminal responsibility (the individual as both an active and passive subject of international law, possessor of rights and bearer of obligations arising directly from public international law (droit des gens)), and the principle of universal jurisdiction. 47. It is worth adding that the decisions of the United Nations Security Council to create the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (1993) and for Rwanda (1994), added to the establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court by the 1998 Rome Conference to prosecute those responsible for Transnational Publs., 2000, pp. 103-120 and 490-494; L.J. van den Herik, The Contribution of the Rwanda Tribunal to the Development of International Law, Leiden, Nijhoff, 2005, pp. 151-198. 44 . Ibid., pp. 93, 183, 192, 199, 228, 278-279, 310, 329-331, 335, 360 and 375. 45 . Cf. ibid., pp. 375-377, 403, 405-407, 441 and 447-448. 46 . M.Ch. Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity..., op. cit. supra n. (40), pp. 106 and 118.