the State does not incur responsibility if it investigates the facts, punishes those responsible, and provides due reparation. According to the Commission, “the above is explained by the subsidiary nature of the inter-American human rights system.” 19 Still according to the Commission, in the instant case, the international responsibility of the State remained because it did not conduct a complete and adequate investigation, and it neither tried nor punished those responsible. 20 20. In its oral pleadings at the aforementioned public hearing before this Court on 07.05.2004 the Commission,21 as reported in the instant Judgment of the Court (para. 68), once again inappropriately mixed the origin of the international responsibility of the State with the “subsidiary nature” of international jurisdiction with respect to domestic or national jurisdiction. In my understanding, any violation of a right protected by the American Convention immediately entails the responsibility of the State; the tempus commissi delicti is that when the internationally wrongful act occurred. This gives rise –as consequences of the original violation- to the obligations of the State under the Convention to investigate the facts, punish those responsible, and provide reparations to the victims; if it does not fulfill those obligations, the State commits additional violations to the applicable international law. 21. An ongoing international human rights proceeding is not affected by domestic legal measures taken independently of it and in light of a different applicable law (the domestic or national one); said measures, therefore, do not magically “discharge” the international responsibility already incurred by the State or make it “disappear.” Implementation of said responsibility (at a moment other than its birth) necessarily occurs in light of the provisions of the human rights treaty involved, which is directly applicable in the domestic law of the State responsible for wrongdoing. 22. A tribunal such as the Inter-American Court is empowered to establish the international responsibility of the State in cases brought before it, without considering a renvoi of the issue under its competence to domestic courts; this is its own prerogative, and also its duty. And since the responsibility of the State under domestic law is not necessarily identical with its responsibility under international law, and the parties and the issue debated under international jurisdiction are not necessarily the same as those under domestic venue, 22 “The [Inter-American] Court cannot abdicate from such determination, not even in the hypothesis that the decision of a national tribunal is entirely coincident with its own as to the merits. Otherwise, this would lead to a total juridical relativism, illustrated by the "endorsement" of a decision of a national tribunal when it is considered in accordance with the Convention, or else the determination that it does not generate, or ought not to generate, legal effects (...) when it is considered incompatible with the American Convention.”23 23. In addition to this, the conditions for admissibility of claims or petitions under the American Convention refer to implementation of the responsibility, not to 19 . Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Informe n. 99/01 - Caso n. 11.016 (Perú), doc. OAS/Ser/L/V/II.113/doc.36, of 11.10.2001, pp. 9 and 12-13, paras. 48-49, 59 and 63. 20 . Ibid., pp. 15 and 19, paras. 69 and 87. 21 . See Transcripción de la Audiencia Pública..., op. cit. supra n. (18), pp. 156-157 (internal distribution). 22 . See, in this regard, I-A Ct of HR, Case of Las Palmeras versus Colombia , Judgment of 06.12.2001 (Merits), Series C, n. 90, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and M. Pacheco Gómez, pp. 43-45, paras. 2-3 and 5. 23 . Ibid., Joint Separate Opinion of Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and M. Pacheco Gómez, pp. 44-45, para. 4.