28 110. On May 9, 2013, the First Parole and Execution of Sentence Court granted Mr. Ruano Torres parole, subject to a probationary period up to June 26, 2015. The court found that José Agapito Ruano met the requirements set by the Criminal Code in that: (i) he had served two-thirds of his sentence; (ii) he was a first-time offender; (iii) he had paid the fine as ordered; (iv) his record was free of offenses and disciplinary sanctions; and (v) according to the criminology examination carried out, he had “displayed good conduct” and “good behavior” and “showed low levels of aggression and dangerousness,” on account of which “the prognosis for social reincorporation was favorable.”161 111. According to the court’s decision, Mr. Ruano Torres is obliged to: (i) not leave the country without prior judicial authorization; (ii) remain a resident of the address given; (iii) keep away from the workplace and residence of the victim and his next-of-kin; and (iv) report each four months to the Department of Evidence and Conditional Liberty. The court added that failure to comply with any of those requirements would cause the cancellation of the benefit awarded.162 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW 112. The Commission notes that a series of facts of different kinds have been established. Accordingly, the Commission will conduct its analysis of law around three points. The first will address the trial and incarceration of Mr. Ruano Torres; the second will examine the alleged violations of the right to humane treatment and the investigations into those facts; and the third will focus on the impact on Mr. Ruano Torres’s family. A. The criminal prosecution and incarceration of Mr. Ruano Torres 113. The Commission notes that one basic principle in the law of international state responsibility, enshrined in international human rights law, is that a state is internationally responsible for acts and omissions by any of its agencies or agents in violation of internationally established rights, pursuant to Article 1.1 of the American Convention.163 Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention define the scope of that principle, with reference to the actions and omissions of the domestic judicial organs164 and of the nonjudicial agencies responsible for the investigation prior to judicial proceedings.165 114. In connection with this, the Commission believes it would be useful to again state that: In order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, [the Commission and the Court] may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as 161 Annex 29. Resolution of the First Parole and Execution of Sentence Court, dated May 9, 2013. Enclosed with José Agapito Ruano Torres’s submission received by the IACHR on July 8, 2013. 162 Annex 29. Resolution of the First Parole and Execution of Sentence Court, dated May 9, 2013. Enclosed with José Agapito Ruano Torres’s submission received by the IACHR on July 8, 2013. 163 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 172; I/A Court H. R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 140; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, paras. 111-112; and I/A Court H. R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, para. 108. 164 I/A Court H. R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, para. 28; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 109. 165 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 133.