67 will provide greater or better safeguard of the protected rights, on condition that, when doing so, such standards do not violate other norms that they are obliged to protect. Also, if elements considered non-derogable in the prosecution formula established at the international level are eliminated, or mechanisms are introduced that detract from meaning or effectiveness, this may lead to the impunity of conducts that the States are obliged to prevent, eliminate and punish under international law. 93. Evidently, the object of this judgment is to determine the international responsibility of Paraguay, the defendant State in these proceedings before the Court, for the facts of the instant case, and the Court restricts itself to this purpose. However, it cannot neglect to indicate that the torture and forced disappearance of the alleged victims, the prohibition of which is a non-derogable provision of international law or jus cogens (supra paras. 84 and 85 and infra paras. 128 and 131), was perpetrated with the collaboration of authorities of other States of the continent and partial impunity remains owing to the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate these acts. The gravity of the facts cannot be separated from the context in which they occurred and it is this Court’s duty to emphasize this, for the purpose of preserving the historical memory and the imperative need to ensure that such facts are never repeated. * * * 94. Owing to the above, and in the terms of the State’s acquiescence, the Court must declare that the State is responsible for the illegal and arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, which constitutes a violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2), and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of these persons. The State’s international responsibility is increased owing to the findings described in the preceding chapter and in section (b) of this chapter. (c) The alleged violation of the right to humane treatment of the victims’ next of kin 95. The State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention with regard to Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Benjamín and Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba (supra para. 49). However, it has not made this acknowledgement with regard to their next of kin, which was alleged by the Commission and by the representatives. Therefore, since the dispute remains in this respect (supra para. 54), in this chapter, the Court will determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment of the next of kin. 96. The Court has indicated on repeated occasions,75 that the next of kin of victims of human rights violations may, in turn, become victims. In this regard, the Court has considered because of the additional anguish they have suffered owing to the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones 75 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 156; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 289; and Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 119.