32 pleading, and those made by the State in its answer to the application and in its own final pleading. The Court will begin by examining some of the assertions made by the parties to these proceedings. 88. The first set of assertions that the Court will consider are those that concern the issue of whether Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, Mr. Mellado Saavedra, Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Astorga Valdez are guilty of the crimes that they are alleged to have committed in Peru. The State asserted that the alleged victims were guilty of serious crimes that constituted treason. 89. The Court does not have jurisdiction to judge the nature and gravity of the crimes that the alleged victims are said to have committed. It takes note of the State’s allegations regarding these matters and asserts, as it has on previous occasions, that a State “has the right and the duty to guarantee its own security,”79 although it must always exercise that right and duty within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person. Obviously, nothing justifies terrorist violence –no matter who the perpetrators- that is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole. Such violence warrants the most vigorous condemnation. The Court’s primary function is to safeguard human rights, regardless of the circumstances. 90. The Court does have authority to rule that States that violate human rights bear international responsibility; it does not have the authority to investigate the agents of the State who had a hand in those violations or to punish them. This is the nature of a human rights court. It is not a criminal court before which an individual’s This is true in the instant responsibility for crimes committed may be litigated.80 case as well, which is not about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Castillo Petruzzi, Mr. Mellado Saavedra, Mrs. Pincheira Sáez and Mr. Astorga Valdez. Hence, the Court will determine the legal consequences of the proven facts that are within its competence and will indicate whether the State bears international responsibility for violation of the Convention. It will not, however, examine assertions by the parties as to the alleged criminal responsibility of the alleged victims, as such matters are the purview of the domestic courts. 91. In its application, the Commission asserted that the isolation of the convicted prisoners and the refusal to allow visits by consular officials were violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 92. In its reply to the application, the State asserted that it had “always afforded every means to enable foreign consular officials to visit their countrymen being held for the commission of a crime on Peruvian soil.” The State also noted that this issue was never raised when the case was with the Inter-American Commission. 93. The Court notes that the allegations made with regard to the alleged violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations have become moot 79. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 19, para. 154. 80. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 19, para. 134; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 3, para. 71.