20 * * * 65. Having examined the evidentiary elements that have been included in the record of the present case, the statements made by the parties, as well as the recognition of responsibility made by the State (supra para. 8 to 54), the Court will analyze the alleged violations in the present case, in consideration of the facts acknowledged by the State and those that are proven,28 which are included in each of the corresponding sections. Likewise, the Court will consider the parties’ arguments that are pertinent to analyze, taking into account the State’s recognition of responsibility. VI INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE IN THE PRESENT CASE 66. The previous section addressed the terms of the State’s acceptance of the facts of the instant case, as well as its partial recognition of international responsibility (supra para. 8 to 54). In this section the Court deems it necessary to clearly establish the reasons which have given rise to the international responsibility of the State in the present case, taking into consideration that a controversy has arisen regarding the context in which the events occurred, the alleged activities undertaken by paramilitary groups as State agents, and, at the time of the events, the alleged institutional policy promoting paramilitarism. 67. This Tribunal has established that international responsibility of States, pursuant to the provisions of the American Convention, arises from a violation of general obligations, in the nature of erga omnes, to respect and enforce respect for – guarantee – norms of protection and to ensure the effectiveness of the rights enshrined therein, under all circumstances and for all persons, as embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.29 Special duties derive from these general obligations which are ascertainable on the basis of the protection needed by the individual who is the subject of the right, either on account of his personal situation or of the specific circumstances pertinent thereto. In this regard, Article 1(1) is essential for the purpose of determining whether a violation of human rights recognized by the Convention may be entirely attributable to a State Party. In effect, said Article prescribes fundamental the duties incumbent upon States Parties to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention, so that any impairment of the human rights enshrined therein can be attributed, in accordance with the rules of international law, to an action or omission of any State official, constituting an act imputable to the State which entails its international responsibility pursuant to the provisions of the Convention and of international law in general. It is a tenet of international law that the State is 28 Going forward, the present Judgment contains facts that this Tribunal has established based upon the recognition of facts and responsibility by the State, in the order and with the precise and relevant facts presented in the application. Some of the facts have been completed by other pieces of evidence, in which case these elements will be marked by footnotes on the respective pages. Additionally, different paragraphs refer to proven facts in the Case of the 19 Tradesmen, already heard by the Inter-American Court, in which appropriate footnotes have been left. Furthermore, the Tribunal has established the facts relevant to the open criminal proceedings, on the basis of the State’s recognition of responsibility and the evidence from the domestic criminal proceedings records, which were presented to the Court by the parties. 29 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 111; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 12, para. 111; and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140.