89 Article 1(1) is crucial to establish whether a violation of the human rights embodied in the Convention can be attributed to a State Party. Said Article does in fact entail a commitment by the States Party to the fundamental duties of respecting and ensuring rights, so any abridgment of the human rights recognized by the Convention that may be attributed, according to the rules of international Law, to actions or omissions by any public authority constitutes an act attributable to the State, entailing its responsibility under the terms set forth in this same Convention. In accordance with Article 1(1) any form of exercising public authority that violates the rights embodied in the Convention is unlawful. In this regard, any circumstances in which a body or official of the State or of a public institution inappropriately abridges one of said rights constitutes disregard for the duty to respect rights, enshrined in that Article. This conclusion is independent of whether the body or official acted contravening domestic legal provisions or going beyond the limits of his own sphere of competence, as it is a principle of International Law that the State is responsible for the acts of its agents carried out in their official capacity and by their omissions, even if they act outside the limits of their sphere of competence or in violation of domestic law.187 109. This Court has likewise pointed out that [t]he general duty under Article 2 of the American Convention entails taking steps in two directions. On the one hand, eliminating all types of provisions and practices that involve a violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention. On the other hand, issuing provisions and developing practices conducive to effective respect for said guarantees.188 110. In other words, the origin of the international responsibility of the State is found in “acts or omissions by any authorities or bodies of the State, whatever their hierarchical level, that violate the American Convention”189, and it is generated immediately with the internationally unlawful act attributed to the State. To establish that there has been an abridgment of the rights embodied in the Convention it is not necessary to establish, as would be the case in domestic criminal law, the guilt of its perpetrators or their intent, and it is also not necessary to individually identify the agents deemed responsible for said abridgments.190 It is enough to prove that there has been support or tolerance by public authorities in the infringement of the rights embodied in the Convention191, or omissions that enabled these violations to take place. 111. Said international responsibility may also be generated by acts of private individuals not attributable in principle to the State. The States Party to the 187 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 72; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 63; Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 76, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 179, para. 178. 188 See Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 13, para. 219; and see Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 4, para. 206; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 187, para. 165. 189 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 182, para. 71; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 184, para. 142; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 187, para. 163. 190 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 141; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 41, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 75. 191 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 190, para. 141; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 184, para. 44, and Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 28.