84 States arises automatically with an international wrong attributable to the State and, unlike under domestic criminal law, in order to establish that there has been a violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, it is not necessary to determine the responsibility of its author or their intention, nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents who are attributed with the violations.128 In this context, the Court ascertains the international liability of the State in this case, which may not be made modeled after structures that belong exclusively to domestic or international criminal law, which in turn defines responsibility or individual criminal liability; nor is it necessary to define the scope of action and rank of each state officer involved in the events. 157. Thus, as regards the requests of the representatives and the State, it must be noted that the events have been described before this court by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, domestic judicial organs and the State’s representatives as crimes against humanity, and it has been established that these were perpetrated in the context of a generalized and systematic attack against sectors of the civilian population. As a result, the duty to investigate and eventually conduct trials and impose sanctions, becomes particularly compelling and important in view of the seriousness of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights wronged; all the more since the prohibition against the forced disappearance of people and the corresponding duty to investigate and punish those responsible has become jus cogens.129 The impunity of these events will not be eradicated without ascertaining general liability of the State and individual criminal liability of its agents or other individuals, both of which complement each other.130 Therefore, suffice it to repeat that the investigations and prosecutions conducted on account of the events in this case warrant the use of all available legal means and must aim to determine the whole truth and to prosecute and eventually capture, try and punish all perpetrators and instigators of the acts. c) Duties under International Law Dealing with Inter-state Cooperation Concerning Investigation and Extradition of Alleged Authors of Serious Human Rights Violations 158. Extradition proceedings have been instituted against one of the main defendants in connection with the events in the instant case131 (supra para. 80(86) to 80(92) and 147). 159. The Court has recognized Perú’s efforts put into the investigations conducted after the transition (supra para. 146 to 150). The Court likewise commends the State on the fact C No. 126, para. 61 and 62. Similarly, cf. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Adali v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 March 2005, Application No. 38187/97, para. 216, and Avsar v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 July 2001, Application No. 25657/94, para. 284. 128 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 110; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 110, para. 141, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 41. 129 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 84 and 131. In connection with the duty to investigate crimes against humanity, specifically murder committed as part of a systematic practice, see also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 99 and 111. 130 131 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para 131. Since he left Perú in November 2000 until November 2005, Alberto Fujimori stayed in Japan, to which Perú requested his extradition on various grounds, including the events of La Cantuta. On January 3 2006, after Alberto Fujimori Fujimori entered Chile, the Peruvian Embassy in that country filed five requests for extradition — including the one referred to the events of La Cantuta—, which led to the current extradition case proceeding before Chile's Supreme Court of Justice (supra para 80(86) to 80.(92)).