13 39. In my view, examination, in recent years, of cases of massacres, heard both by international criminal courts and by international human rights courts, must, in our days, involve greater rapprochement or convergence between international criminal responsibility of individuals and international responsibility of the States, respectively, which in my opinion are essentially complementary –as I have pointed out in my Separate Opinion (paras. 14-20) in the Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala case (Judgment of 25.11.2003), as well as in my Separate Opinion (paras. 37-39) in the case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre with regard to Guatemala (merits, Judgment of 29.04.2004), and as I have been arguing consistently since this type of especially grave cases has been systematically brought before this Court. 40. The aggravating circumstances as regards the international responsibility of the State lead us precisely to the concept of a “Crime of State”, recently eluded by the ILC. However, as I mentioned in my aforementioned Separate Opinion in the Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala case (2003), when a State plans, and contributes to the execution of, or executes a crime, it follows that Crimes of State do exist. The State, with its juridical personality, is imputable, like any other legal person. Thus, as I pointed out in that Separate Opinion, and I firmly reiterate that position here, "most contemporary international juridical doctrine is mistaken in seeking to avoid the issue. While the expression “crime of State” may seem objectionable to many international jurists (especially those petrified by the specter of State sovereignty) because it suggests an inadequate analogy with juridical categories of domestic criminal law, this does not mean that crimes of State do not exist. The facts in the instant case are eloquent evidence that 19 they do exist. Even if another name is sought for them, the existence of crimes of State does not cease for that reason. (…) As long as attempts to evade the issue continue, contemporary international juridical doctrine will continue to succumb to the specter of State sovereignty, and it will continue to hold back the evolution of the law of nations in our days. As long as its existence continues to be denied, the human person, the ultimate one entitled to its inherent rights, and prior and superior to the State, will be denied protection and exercise of said rights, first of all the right to justice; the human person will also be denied reparations for abridgments of those rights. As long as its existence continues to be denied, the State –hostage to a deformed structure of repression and impunity- will be deprived of its principal aim, the realization of the common weal. As long as its existence continues to be denied, in the midst of an empty semantic imbroglio (which distracts attention from the central issue, which is the need to ensure that justice prevails), the Law itself will be deprived of its ultimate aim, which is precisely the realization of justice. As long as attempts to avoid the issue continue, treatment of the central chapter of the law of international 19 . Which would not avoid the skeptical exclamation of the legendary prince of Denmark: "-(...) What do you read, my lord? - Words, words, words". (W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, 1600, act II, scene 2).