SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. In voting in favour of the adoption, by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of the present Judgment on reparations in the case of Cantoral Benavides versus Peru, I feel obliged to leave on the records my brief reflections on the resolutory points ns. 4 and 6 of this Sentence. The first point raises the question of the scope of the duty to provide reparation under Article 63.1 of the Convention, while the second point pertains to the forms of the duty of reparation. To the two points I shall briefly refer, in the context of the circumstances of the cas d'espèce, as the foundation of my position on the matter. I. The Scope of the Duty of Reparation. 2. As to the first of the two points (resolutory point n. 4), the Court has decided, in my view correctly, that the State ought to "leave without any effect", the sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru of condemnation of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, resorting to that end to the means of domestic law (resolutory point n. 4). As the international responsibility of a State Party can be generated by any act or omission on the part of any of its Powers - Executive, Legislative of Judicial, - the Court can and ought to decide, as it has done in the present Judgment, that the State Party at issue ought to, in conformity with its domestic law, leave without any effect a sentence of a national tribunal incompatible with the norms of protection of the American Convention on Human Rights. 3. If the occurrence of the international wrongful fact - act or omission - is due to a norm of domestic law, the tempus commisi delicti is that of the moment of the promulgation of this norm, which per se engages the responsibility of the State Party for being incompatible with the norms of protection of the American Convention on Human Rights. The existence of a norm - in force - of domestic law incompatible with the Convention constitutes, in the context of a concrete case, a continuing violation of the Convention1. Once established the responsibility of the State, this latter has the duty to reestablish the situation which secures to the victim the enjoyment of his violated rights (restitutio in integrum), putting an end to the situation in breach of those rights, as well as, when appropriate, to provide reparation for the consequences of such violation. 4. Thus, non-pecuniary reparation (conducive to obtaining the restitutio) can consist, in the context of a concrete case, in the modifications in the domestic legal order of a State Party2, as well as in the means to leave without effect the sentence of a national tribunal, - aiming at harmonizing both the provisions of domestic law and the national case-law with the norms of protection of the American Convention on Human Rights. In the present case, the Peruvian State took the initiative, to this effect, of modifying parts of the Decrees-Laws ns. 25.475 (on the crime of terrorism) and 25.659 (on the crime of traición a la patria). 5. Some of such reforms took place subsequently to the Judgment on the merits and all of them (so far) prior to the Judgment on reparations in the Cantoral Benavides case, what constitutes a positive step taken by the respondent State in order to secure 1 . Cf., to this effect, my Concurring Opinion in the case of the "Last Temptation of Christ", concerning Chile (Merits, Judgment of 05.02.2001). 2 . Cf., to this effect, my Dissenting Opinion in the case Caballero Delgado and Santana versus Colombia (Reparations, Judgment of 29.01.1997).