knowledge that his acts constitute part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. 179 228. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights, in a case in which the facts occurred in 1956, recognized as elements of crimes against humanity the presence of discrimination or persecution against a specific group of the civilian population and the existence of a systematic and widespread state policy or action. 180 229. National courts of Argentina, 181 Colombia, 182 Peru, 183 Chile 184 and Guatemala 185 have recognized the following elements as constituting crimes against humanity: the existence of a systematic or widespread attack against the civilian population or a specific group of civilians, which should include inhumane acts committed as part of a coordinates State plan or policy to this end. In addition, some courts have considered relevant the existence of discrimination for political, ideological, religious, ethnic or national reasons. B.2. Consequence of the perpetration of a crime against humanity 230. As previously indicated (supra para. 219), the prohibition of crimes against humanity is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). This means that the said prohibition “is accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.” 186 Specifically, the first obligation of States is to avoid such conditions occurring. If they do occur, the State’s duty is to ensure that such conducts are criminally prosecuted and the perpetrators punished, 187 so that such conducts do not remain in impunity. 188 231. Even if certain conducts that are considered crimes against humanity are not formally defined as such in domestic law, or might even be legal under domestic law, this does not relieve the person who committed the act from his responsibility under international law. In other words, the inexistence of domestic legal provisions that establish and punish Cf. SCSL. Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima and Others. Judgment of June 20, 2007, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, paras. 214 to 222. 179 180 Cf. ECHR. Korbely v. Hungary [GS]. No. 9174/02. Judgment of September 19, 2008, paras. 78 to 84. Federal Criminal Oral Court (La Plata). September 26, 2006, Case of “Circuito Camps” et al., case No.2251/06; Fourth Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Court. Criminal cassation appeal. February 17, 2012, Case of Gregorio Rafael Molina, case No. 12821; Federal Criminal Oral Court No. 1 of San Martín. Judgment for crimes against humanity. August 12, 2009, General Riveros et al. in the case of Floreal Edgardo Avellaneda et al.. 181 Justice and Peace Chamber of the Superior Court of the Bogotá Judicial Circuit. Judgment and comprehensive reparation. December 1, 2011, Case files: 1100160002532008-83194; 1100160002532007-83070 (José Rubén Peña Tobón, et. al., petitioners), paras. 71 to 81; Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia. Appeal judgment. September 21, 2009, Proceedings No. 32022 (Gian Carlo Gutiérrez Suárez, petitioner), considerandum 4 (pp. 190 to 199). 182 183 Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Peru. Special Criminal Chamber. Judgment of April 7, 2009, Case of Alberto Fujimori, File No. 17-2001, consideranda 710 to 717. Supreme Court of Chile. Replacement judgment. July 8, 2010, Murder of Carlos Prats and Sofía Cuthbert, Case file No. 2596-09 184 185 Constitutional Court of Guatemala. Amparo appeal. December 18, 2014, file 3340-2013, considerandum IV. 186 Cf. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna, May 23, 1969), Art. 53. 187 Cf. Case of Goiburú v. Paraguay, para. 128. 188 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 160. 51