29 the Office of the Ombudsman remitted this resolution to the Fifteenth Court of Peace of San Salvador. On November 7, 1996, the judge of the Fifteenth Court of Peace of San Salvador replied to the resolution, referring to various points within it, including the testimonies of lay and expert witnesses and investigative evidence gathered during investigations that formed the legal and procedural basis necessary to elevate the proceedings to full trial.66 96. On June 22, 2005, the Office of the Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights issued a “Special Report on the Case of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt”, pursuant to domestic legislation establishing its functions, under file number SS0725-95. In this report, the Office of the Ombudsman, inter alia: a) concluded that the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto was an extrajudicial execution allegedly perpetrated by an illegal armed group which had acted with the tolerance of the police authorities; b) ratified its resolution of October 14, 1996, in which it concluded that the motive of the crime was to arbitrarily deprive the victim of his life and that the motive was not robbery as decided by the Trial Judge; c) concluded that the Judge of the Fifteenth Court of Peace failed to investigate the material authors’ membership in a structure dedicated to the elimination of individuals; d) indicated that several delays had occurred in the investigative proceedings and that general impunity existed in the García Prieto case due to the lack of will by the State to establish the truth of the events; and e) indicated that the García Prieto Giralt family continued to be the victims of telephone harassment, surveillance by unknown individuals, and other similar acts.67 * * * 97. This Tribunal has recognized in previous cases that it is a basic principle of the law of international State responsibility, established in International Human Rights Law, that every State is internationally responsible for acts and omissions of any of its authorities or organs which violate internationally recognized rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.68 Likewise, Articles 8 and 25 of b) c) Castellanos, leader of the Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (“Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional” or “FMLN”); questioned the use of “confidential sources” and the lack of transparency with which the police investigation of the events was carried out; and referred to several procedural irregularities which prevented advances in the investigation of the theory that suggested links between State agents and the events, moreover, the Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights concluded that: a) b) c) the motive for the crime was homicide and not robbery, given that Ramón Mauricio did not resist at all when he handed over his money, and did not raise any defense, and the crime was committed by “an operational group whose acts were very ‘professional’ in the perpetration of that type of crime”; and recommended that the investigation be conducted seriously and in strict compliance with the Constitution, international treaties, and the law. 66 Cf. Judge’s Report of November 7, 1996 of the Fifteenth Court of Peace of San Salvador (exhibits to the application, exhibit 1, volume III, pages 700 to 717). 67 Cf. “Special Report on the Case of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt” by the Ombudsman for the Defense of Human Rights of June 22, 2005 (exhibits to the application, exhibit 6, pages 2995 to 3146).