personality, personal liberty, humane treatment, and life, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee rights; (b) rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, read in conjunction with the obligation to respect and guarantee rights, adopt domestic legal effects, and investigate serious human rights violations; (c) rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection as regards reparations for grave human rights violations, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee rights, adopt domestic legal effects, and investigate serious human rights violations; and (d) right to humane treatment of Anatole Alejandro and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee rights. 119. Before carrying out its substantive analysis, the Court would note its awareness that the general context and the unique circumstances in which the facts took place, within the framework of "Operation Condor," involved the actions of not only Argentina, but other States, including Uruguay—whose agents intervened directly—and Chile, to whose territory Anatole and Victoria were secretly taken. The three States had an obligation to protect and guarantee human rights and, therefore, the multiple violations committed could eventually lead to some type of concurrent responsibility among them. However, the Court recalls that the case was brought before it only with respect to the Argentine State. 120. Nonetheless, as the Court has highlighted on previous occasions, the concept of “collective guarantee” underlies the entire inter-American system, 142 and is understood as the “general duty of protection that the States have” to ensure the effectiveness of international human rights instruments. Thus, the Court has emphasized that “human rights norms […] reflect common values and collective interests that are considered important and, therefore, worthy enough to benefit from collective application,” 143 and therefore “the duty of cooperation among States in the promotion and observance of human rights is a rule of an erga omnes nature, since it must be observed by all States, and is of a binding nature in international law.” 144 121. In this regard, the effectiveness of the collective guarantee mechanism makes it imperative that the States that had some type of participation in the consummation of the facts in this case and, in general, in the context of Operation Condor collaborate with each other, in good faith, to eradicate impunity for the human rights violations committed, providing information that will make it possible to establish the facts and, where relevant, cooperate with the extradition and the investigation, prosecution, and eventual punishment of those responsible for those facts. 145 All this requires a specific duty of inter-State cooperation and collaboration, 146 such that States attend to and apply all available national and international mechanisms and, if necessary, create and implement other essential mechanisms in order to effectively comply with their international obligations 147 (infra para. 289). Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, par. 42, and Denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of the Organization of American States and the consequences for State human rights obligations (interpretation and scope of articles 1, 2, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 to 65 and 78 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 3(l), 17, 45, 53, 106 and 143 of the Charter of the Organization of American States). Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020. Series A No. 26, par. 163. 143 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020, supra, par. 164. 144 Cf. The institution of asylum, and its recognition as a human right under the Inter-American System of Protection (interpretation and scope of Articles 5, 22(7) and 22(8) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-25/18 of May 30, 2018. Series A No. 25, par. 199, and Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020, supra, par. 164. 145 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra par. 166, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 160. 146 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, par. 160, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, par. 296. 147 In specific matters of enforced disappearances, the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances has indicated that “When there are indications that a disappeared person may be in a foreign country, [...] the authorities responsible for the search should use all available national and international cooperation mechanisms and, 142 34