27 Reconciliation Commission’s report, through the enactment of Law No. 28592, “Law Creating the Comprehensive Reparations Plan.” 130. The Inter-American Court has held, from its earliest judgments, that: According to Article 1.1, any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. This conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority: under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when 152 those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law. 131. The Commission notes that, as has been established, on August 9, 1994, two members of the Army, their faces covered by balaclavas and unbeknown to the bus driver, ran onto the LimaChosica highway to intercept a public transport vehicle. The members of the patrol had not been ordered to stop motor vehicles, but to identify passersby in the vicinity and to ask them to show their papers. It has also been established that when the bus failed to stop, one of the soldiers accidentally fired on it with the FAL rifle he was carrying, causing the deaths of Ms. Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and seriously wounding Mr. Luis Bejarano Laura. The Commission notes that the two soldiers subsequently fled the scene without rendering assistance and that they did not inform their immediate superior of the incident, even though both were aware that they had that obligation. 132. The Commission notes that according to the first steps taken in investigating the incident, upon hearing the gunshot and being informed that his troops had opened fire on a public transport vehicle, the patrol commander went to the Ate Vitarte police station, where he allowed a National Police specialist to partially disassemble the FAL rifles of the 15 patrol members to identify which of them had been discharged and that the weapon in question was thus identified. However, the Commission notes that the Army did not hand over the discharged rifle, or the other 14 belonging to the patrol members, to the civilian authorities for them to carry out further investigations, and neither does the record indicate that the prosecutor in charge of the case asked the Army to surrender those weapons. The Commission also notes that the prosecutor did not order additional expert testing after being informed of the incident by the National Police in Ate Vitarte on August 10, 1994, such as paraffin nitrate tests on all the patrol members, the reconstruction of the scene of the crime, or forensic mapping. 133. The Commission notes that although on August 17, 1994, Sergeant Second-Class Antonio Evangelista Pinedo acknowledged in his statement to the prosecutor that he had discharged his weapon in the direction of the bus, which was corroborated by Cpl. Arica – Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo’s patrol partner – in his statement, the prosecutor did not file a criminal complaint against Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo until November 2, 1994, almost three months after the incident, and the Criminal Court did not open committal proceedings until November 25, 1994, almost four months later. 134. In addition, the Commission has seen that although at the commencement of committal proceedings on November 25, 1994, the judge ordered a statement to be taken from the accused and for him to be detained, the Army did not hand him over to the civilian authorities, even though he was under arrest at military facilities from September 13, 1994, to August 29, 1995, when he was released under the terms of the Amnesty Law. 135. The Commission recognizes the efforts made by the State of Peru to investigate and punish the facts of the case at hand, in that finally, on July 23, 2008, almost 14 years after the incident and almost 7 years after reopening the case, the National Criminal Chamber handed down a conviction for homicide and set a compensation payment of 30,000 new sols, jointly paid in later years by the convict 152 I/A Court H. R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, paras. 169 and 170.