purpose (guarantee human safety), practice itself terrorist acts; it must act within the Law. And here I move on to a second example of a highly complex situation. I am referring to a generalized situation of violence, of a domestic or non-international armed conflict: in said situation, along with the application of criminal law to the perpetrators of terrorist acts and of International Human Rights law with regard to violations perpetrated by State bodies or agents, International Humanitarian Law – with its current institutional shortages – is also applied. 89. For years I have been defending the concomitant application of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law (cf. infra). In the end what is important is to guarantee that nobody is left without the protection of the Law. The matter of the exact realm of the addressees of the regulations of International Humanitarian law in domestic or non-international armed conflicts has resulted in debates and controversies. The doctrine is inclined to consider all those involved in said conflicts, even those that support the parties involved in them, as addressees of said regulations and bound by it.67 The applicability of International Law to all those involved in domestic armed conflicts has the effect of gradually strengthening the protection of the defenseless,68 of possible victims. 90. This means that, moved by the needs themselves of protection, International Humanitarian Law has transcended its previous inter-state point of view, and it currently extended its realm of application to non-state groups and entities, to armed groups that oppose domestic conflicts, who may have compromised their criminal responsibility.69 (cf. infra) This development is not limited to a purely doctrinal level, and it has currently also found its expression in international jurisprudence: recently the Appellate Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leon stated, in the case of Prosecutor versus Sam Hinga Norman (jurisdiction, decision of 05.31.2004), that "it is well settled that all parties to an armed conflict, whether States or non-State actors, are bound by International Humanitarian Law, even though only State may become parties to international treaties."70 91. Thus, the obligations of International Humanitarian Law are imposed both to States and to individuals and groups, to non-state entities, to armed insurgents in general, and the States have not questioned this notable development of International Humanitarian Law in the practice.71 It also deals with the growing needs of protection of . Cf. M. Sassòli y A.A. Bouvier et alii, How Does Law Protect in War?, Geneva, ICRC, 1999, p. 215. 67 . Cf., v.g., C. Ewumbue-Monono, "Respect for International Humanitarian Law by Armed Non-State Actors in Africa", 88 International Review of the Red Cross (2006) n. 864, pp. 905-923. 68 . Cf. L. Zegveld, The Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law, Cambridge, University Press, 2002, pp. 3-260. 69 . Cit. in A. Clapham, "Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Conflict Situations", 88 International Review of the Red Cross (2006) n. 863, pp. 497-498. 70 . Ibid., pp. 498, 500-501 y 521-523. – On the operation, in general, of the Special Court for Sierra Leona, cf. [Several Authors,] Internationalized Criminal Courts - Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo and Cambodia (eds. C. Romano, A. Nollkaemper y J.K. 71 26