territory of the State where the facts occurred. This is because such “inhuman acts, owing to their magnitude and gravity, exceed the limits of what is considered tolerable by the international community, which must necessarily demand that they be punished. Crimes against humanity also transcend the individual, because when the individual is attacked, all humanity is attacked and rejected.” 325 296. In 1927, the Permanent Court of International Justice indicated that though “the principle of the territorial character of criminal law is fundamental, it is equally true that all or nearly all these systems of law extend their action to offences committed outside the territory of the State which adopts them, and they do so in ways which vary from State to State. The territoriality of criminal law, therefore, is not an absolute principle of international law and by no means coincides with territorial sovereignty.” 326 Therefore, in cases of international crimes (such as crimes against humanity) a presumption exists in favor of the extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction, and it would be for the State to prove the existence of the rule prohibiting this. In addition, the sixth paragraph of the Preamble to the Rome Statute recalls “that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” 327 According to the International Law Commission, “any State may exercise its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity. States must ensure the effective prosecution of crimes against humanity by taking measures at the national level and facilitating international cooperation. That cooperation is also applicable as regards extradition and reciprocal legal assistance.” 328 Meanwhile, the Inter-American Court has indicated that, “in contexts of systematic human rights violations, the need to eradicate impunity reveals itself to the international community as a duty of cooperation among States to this end.” 329 297. The concept of universal jurisdiction has been developed in recent decades and has been recognized by diverse States, especially following the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It may be said that, at the present time: (a) the universal jurisdiction is an accepted customary norm, so that it does not have to be established in an international treaty; 330 (b) it may be exercised with regard to the international crimes Federal Criminal Oral Court (La Plata). September 26, 2006, Case of “Circuito Camps” et al., case No. 2251/06, considerandum IV.a. 325 Permanent International Court of Justice. Judgment of September 7, 1927, Matter of S.S. Lotus (France c. Turkey), Series A, No. 10 (1927), para. 50. 326 327 Statute of the International Criminal Court, Preamble. UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session (6 May-26 July, 1996). A/51/10. pp. 28-29 and 31-32. Commentary 6 on article 8, and commentaries on article 9 of the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. 328 329 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 160. Similarly, see: Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, para. 125, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 131. See, inter alia, United Nations. The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisiction, A/56/677, December 4, 2001, Principle 3, Available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/56/677, and Institute of International Law. Universal criminal jurisdiction with regard to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Resolution of the Seventeenth Commission at the Krakow Session, 2005, Available at http://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/ 2005_kra_03_en.pdf. Similarly, the principle of aut dedere aut judicare refers to the alternative obligation contained in some multilaterial treaties to extradite or to prosecute, and its purpose is to guarantee international cooperation in the case of certain criminal conducts. This principle is a way in which States are obliged to exercise their jurisdiction to try certain conducts considered crimes under international law if they refuse to extradite those presumably responsible to the State requesting them. Clearly, it does not matter if the crimes have not been committed in the territory of the State that has refused the extradition and that, by virtue of this principle, has the obligation to prosecute them. That obligation is contained in several international conventions on human rights and international humanitarian law (Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (art. 7); International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (arts. 9 and 11); InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (art. 12); Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (art. IV); Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Principle 18); Articles 49, 50, 129 and 146, respectively of the four Geneva Conventions adopted on 330 76