REASONED OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO-TRINDADE* 1. I vote in favor of adoption of the instant Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the merits and reparations in the Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala case, in which the Court ruled that the violation of Myrna Mack Chang’s right to life occurred under aggravating circumstances (para. 139), because it resulted from “a covert military intelligence operation carried out by the Presidential General Staff and tolerated by various authorities and institutions” (para. 140), set within a “pattern of selective extra-legal executions fostered and tolerated by the State itself” (para. 151), and a "climate of impunity” (paras. 155 and 158). The Court also found that said military intelligence operation by the Presidential General Staff “sought to conceal the facts and sought impunity of those responsible, and to this end, with tolerance by the State, it resorted to all types of means, including harassment, threats and murders of those cooperating with the courts,” thus affecting the independence of the Judiciary (para. 216). 2. It is my understanding that this is a case of aggravated international responsibility of the State, demonstrated by the aforementioned facts and abusive resort to the so-called “official secret,” leading to an obstruction of justice.1 These aggravating circumstances make the instant case a paradigmatic one, and because of them the instant Judgment of the Court is destined to be truly historical. Given the great significance of the juridical issues addressed in it, I feel the obligation to state my personal reflections on the matter, as the basis for my position on the subject of the decision of the Court, especially with respect to the following aspects: a) the difficult paths of international responsibility of the States; b) criminalization of grave human rights violations; c) complementarity between the international responsibility of the States and the international criminal responsibility of individuals; d) types of culpability and crimes of State; e) crimes of State in connection with the fundamental or higher interests of the international community; f) the act of invoking international responsibility of the State by the human being as a subject of international law; g) the nature of the international responsibility of the State, and its relationship with the realization of justice and the struggle against impunity; h) the juridical consequences of crimes of State: aggravated international responsibility and the nature and scope of the reparatio. I. The Difficult Paths of International Responsibility of the States. 3. The domain of international responsibility of the State plays a pivotal role in the conceptual universe of International Law. It is the backbone of the international legal order. Actually, the legal system of responsibility is the critical center of any legal system, where the nature and scope of the obligations and the determination of the juridical consequences of their abridgment come together. It therefore constitutes, in brief, the thermometer of operation of the legal system as a whole. Nevertheless, it is truly paradoxical that despite its pivotal role in the international legal order and its crucial importance for the legal system in its entirety, the issue of international * 1 This translations is awaiting its final revision by the author. . Cf. paras. 174-181 of the instant Judgment. Cf. also, in this regard, CEH, Guatemala, Memoria del Silencio - Informe de la Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, volume VI, Annex I, Guatemala, 1999, pp. 242 and 244.