-91circumstances and characteristics of the facts of the case, in the following order: (a) State responsibility under the American Convention; (b) the obligations of prevention and protection in relation to personal liberty, humane treatment and life; (c) the obligation to investigate the facts effectively deriving from the obligation to guarantee, and (d) the right to humane treatment of the alleged victims’ next of kin. a) State responsibility under the American Convention 111. This Court has already established that, under the American Convention, the international responsibility of States arises at the time of the violation of the general obligations erga omnes to respect and ensure respect for – guarantee – the norms of protection and also to ensure the effectiveness of all the rights established in the Convention in all circumstances and with regard to all persons, which is embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.187 There are special obligations that derive from these obligations, which are determined in function of the particular needs for protection of the subject of law, either owing to his personal situation or to the specific situation in which he finds himself. In this regard, Article 1(1) is fundamental for deciding whether the full scope of a violation of the human rights established in the Convention may be attributed to the State Party. Indeed, this article imposes on States Parties the fundamental obligations to respect and guarantee rights, so that any violation of the human rights established in the Convention that can be attributed, according to the rules of international law, to the act or omission of any public authority, constitutes a fact attributable to the State, which involves its international responsibility in the terms established in the Convention and according to general international law. It is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts and omissions of its agents in their official capacity, even if they overstep the limits of their authority.188 112. The international responsibility of the State is based on “acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their rank, which violate the American Convention,”189 and it is generated immediately with the international illegal act attributed to the State. In these conditions, in order to establish whether a violation of the human rights established in the Convention has been produced, it is not necessary to determine, as it is in domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention; nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents to whom the acts that violate the human rights embodied in the Convention are attributed.190 It is sufficient that a State obligation exists and that the State failed to comply with it. 113. The Court has also recognized that the State’s international responsibility may arise from attribution to the State of human rights violations committed by third 187 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 111, and Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 188 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 108; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 72, and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 63. 189 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” case, supra note 7, para. 110; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 188, para. 71, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 142. 190 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 110; Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 141, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 41.