9 32. The lack of certainty of the acknowledgement that I referred to above would lead to practical consequences that would tarnish the performance of the international jurisdictions – and, in any case, that of those related to the protection of human rights. Likewise, once the principles of legality and justiciability inherent in the international jurisdiction were “touched,” it would undermine the access of individuals to such jurisdictions and affect legal certainty, and it would also curb the prompt functioning of these instances, which, nowadays, are one of the principle bastions of the world order, and whose competent performance is of interest to the States themselves. International justice would be compromised, suspended or subordinated to specific domestic acts, which are predictable or unpredictable from the international, and even the national, perspective. If this were so, the international courts would have to systematically disregard acknowledgements and acquiescence made by the States, so as not to risk the effectiveness of their own rulings. V. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE AND OF ITS AGENTS 33. In the instant case, as I have said, the State’s acknowledgement of the facts refers to those facts included in the application submitted by the Inter-American Commission; moreover, the acquiescence to the claims contained in this application, which initiated the proceeding, covers all the facts, without any reservation. These include the participation of several persons in the violation committed under different juridical classifications described in criminal law: perpetrators, intellectual authors, accomplices, accessories. The existence of a complex criminal participation, with the corresponding different individual responsibilities may be inferred from the characteristics of the facts perpetrated, as well as from the probative elements gathered and assessed by the Court, and also from the broad acknowledgement made by the State. 34. It is not possible to concentrate “criminal responsibility” for homicide in the State, as this would continue to leave individual responsibilities unidentified and unpunished. The idea of a State crime, a dramatic and effective term from a public and political perspective, involving the existence of “conspiracy networks” within the formal power, may imply, in view of its very broad scope, that criminal participation is attributed to all those who are part of the State – and, indeed, constitute the State itself – a conclusion which is evidently excessive and entails the temptation to subordinate effective and specific individual criminal responsibility to a hypothetical and general State responsibility or, at least, to hide the former under cover of the latter. The consequences of this are foreseeable; sometimes it is proposed in good faith, but its results may be contrary to those desired. 35. As is always said, there is a State obligation to investigate facts that violate human rights, prosecute those who participate in them, deliver the corresponding convictions and carry out the respective punishments. This is the “obligation to provide criminal justice” which I referred to above and which leads to the system of reparations established in Article 63(1) of the Convention, according to the progressive interpretation of the Inter-American Court in a development which is one of the best contributions to its case law for the protection of human rights. For this criminal justice to be effective, it must be complete, not selective, and it must be implemented within a reasonable lapse of time. Otherwise, there will be absolute or relative impunity – and the latter is still impunity – which constitutes the best “safeguard” for the violation of human rights.