60 94. It should be noted that, notwithstanding the following considerations (below paras. 155-7), the State expressed that “it understands that the duty to administer justice consists of investigating and punishing each person who has taken part in the criminal events in La Cantuta. To that extent, the State will abide by the decisions of the Court regarding to the investigation, identification and punishment of those liable for ordering the commission of international crimes, such as the ones under review in the instant case.” Furthermore, the State pointed out that the acknowledged facts “amount to international illicit events [and, in turn,] to crimes under local legislation, and that these international crimes must be prosecuted by the State.” 95. The facts of this case have been classified by the CVR, domestic judicial bodies and by the State’s representative before this Court, as “international crimes” and “crimes against humanity” (above paras. 42, 44, 94 and 80(68)). The extra-legal execution and forced disappearance of alleged victims were perpetrated in the context of a generalized and systematic attack against sectors of the civil population.93 96. Suffice it to mention here that the Court considers it acknowledged and proven that the planning and execution of detention and subsequent cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, extra-legal execution and forced disappearance of alleged victims, carried out in a coordinated and concealed way by the members of military forces and the Colina Group, could not have passed unnoticed to or have occurred without the orders of the superior ranks of the Executive Power and the then military forces and intelligence bodies, especially the chiefs of intelligence and the same President of the Republic himself. Hence, the conclusion to which this Court has recently arrived in the case of Goiburú et al. vs. Paraguay is of full application to this case: State agents not only failed to comply with their duties to preserve and protect the rights of alleged victims, contemplated in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, but also used their official tenures and resources granted by the State to commit said violations. As State, its institutions, mechanisms and powers had to function as a guarantee of protection against the criminal actions performed by its agents. However, state power was actually used as a means and resource to commit violations of the rights they should have respected and guaranteed […]94 97. The victims in the present case, as well as many other persons of that time, suffered from the application of practices and methods in complete disregard of human rights, meticulously planned, systematized and executed from the lines of the State, in many aspects similar to the ones used by the terrorist or subversive groups they meant to fight against under the justification of counter-terrorism or “counter-subversion.” 98. The Court has considered it adequate to start this chapter by stating that the context within which the facts took place tints and conditions the international responsibility of the 93 Cf. Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “The Colina Military Post”, “The Actions of the Congress of the Republic”, “Year 2000: the reopening of proceedings under ordinary civil system”, in the extralegal executions of university students from La Cantuta (1992) CVRanswer to application (main file, volume II, page 519); written closing pleadings submitted by the State (main file, volume IV, page 892); complaint presented by the Ad hoc Prosecutor, Ronal Gamarra, as Appendix to Note of the State No. 7-5-M-432, December 14, 2004 (record of Appendixes to application, Appendix 42(d), page 1550), and report No. 001-2006/MP/FPEDCDD.HH of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office Specialized in crimes against human rights, October 10, 2006 (record of Appendixes to final written closing pleadings submitted by the State, Appendix 3, p. 3791). 94 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., above note 1, para. 66.