3 applied. As far as the duties of Public Attorneys are concerned, and as regards criminal prosecution (although PAs also act in other areas), several States have chosen to confer upon them investigation powers, independent from those of the adjudicator, (the Court of Inquests); in others, they have accusing powers, on the basis of a previous inquiry; in several ones, they act in concurrence with private accusers; in some, they hold a monopoly on criminal action, et caetera. And as far as organization is concerned, there are States where the PAs or Public Prosecutors are a constitutionally autonomous body, and States where they are part of the Executive Branch, or of the Judiciary. 13. Naturally, there are interesting arguments for and against each one of the aforementioned options, as well as regarding their different combinations and developments. Such arguments must be weighed in the light of their real conditions. Their assessment, in the final analysis, falls within the purview of domestic instances. Certain forms of organization (such as the constitutionally instituted autonomy) “are and seem to be” more adequate than others to foster discipline under statute and respect for human rights, points which I will take up in the following paragraphs. 14. For the purposes now sought ─ national and international human rights protection ─ , what matters is to acknowledge that any organizational and operating system for Public Attorneys, a State institution, must respect individual rights, that is it must consequently conform to the respect and guarantee general duties. Therefore, a “human rights perspective” is required in order to assess the performance of Public Attorneys; the administrative approach or the procedural perspective are not enough. It is the former aspect, and not the two latter ones, that can be questioned before a human rights tribunal. 15. If Public Attorneys are “magistrates of legality”, their inquest function ─ and more so their quasi adjudicating duties, where they have them ─ must abide by statute. To put it differently: they must pay attention solely and exclusively to it when establishing the existence of a criminal act or when ascribing criminal responsibility, be it to institute (or not to institute, when the system allows them to decide the point at their own discretion) an action, be it to indict, with all the different attending procedural actions. In such sense, actions by the PAs are “neutral” at the first stage (inquest), even though they may become “parties” at the second one (indictment), once they have reached a position about the facts and those responsible for them. 16. PAs would not be true to their mission if they avoided the rule of law, which does not condemn or acquit any person beforehand, but that orders that the facts leading to a conclusion serving truth, and therefore instrumental to justice, be searched for diligently. In such sense, the duty ─ and the work ─ of PAs are akin to those of the tribunal. Neither they nor the latter pursue their own interests, but they rather exercise public functions regulated by statute. It is for statute to set the framework, the course and the limits. 17. Public Attorneys are an institution, rather than individuals. Consequently, they act “institutionally”, conforming to unity and indivisibility principles, among others. What I have said hereinbefore is applicable to the operation of the “Public Attorneys institution”, but in fact such institution is left in charge of individuals acting on the basis of their institutional investiture; they are therefore bound to strictly perform the statutory duties of the institution they represent. 18. The sole dependence of the law characterizing PAs as the officials whose duty is