Article 1(1) is essential in determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized by the Convention can be imputed to a State Party. In effect, that Article charges the States Parties with the fundamental duty to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights can be attributed under the rules of international law to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State, which assumes responsibility in the terms provided by the Convention.523 279. The international responsibility of the State can be based on acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs that violate the American Convention, and it is generated immediately with the international illegal act attributed to the State. In these conditions, in order to establish whether a violation of the human rights established in the Convention has been produced, it is not necessary to determine, as it is in domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention; nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents to whom the acts that violate [the human rights embodied in the Convention] are attributed. It is sufficient “that a State obligation exists and that the State failed to comply with it.”524 280. Over time, the work of the Commission and the Court has defined the content of the obligations to respect and guarantee [the rights] set forth under Article 1(1) de the Convention. As to the obligation to respect [rights], the Court indicated that “[a]ccording to Article 1(1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ, official, or public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in [the Convention].”525 281. In the words of the Court, this conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits of his authority; under international law, a State is responsible for the acts of its agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions, even when those agents act outside the sphere of their authority or violate internal law.526 282. Regarding the obligation to guarantee [rights], the Court has indicated that States must prevent, investigate, and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible, attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.527 These obligations also apply to possible acts committed by non-state actors. Specifically, the Court has indicated that “the State’s international responsibility may arise from attribution to the State of human rights violations committed by third parties or individuals, within the framework of the State’s obligations to guarantee respect for those rights between individuals;528 (…) the obligations erga omnes to respect and ensure respect for the norms of protection, which is the responsibility of the States Parties to the Convention, extend their effects beyond the relationship between its agents and the persons subject to its jurisdiction, because they are also manifest in the positive obligation of the State to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of human rights in inter-individual relations.”529 These obligations must be determined in function of the need for protection in each particular case.”530 283. Specifically, with respect to the duty to protect, the Court has indicated that “a State cannot be responsible for all the human rights violations committed between individuals within its jurisdiction. Indeed, the nature erga omnes of the treaty-based guarantee obligations of the States does not imply their unlimited I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 164. I/A Court H.R. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, paragraph 133; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, paragraph 112. 525 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 169. See also: IACHR, Report No. 11/10, Case 12.488, Merits, Barrios Family, Venezuela, March 16, 2010, paragraph 91. 526 I/A Court H.R. Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Paragraph 170. 527 I/A Court H.R. Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Paragraph 166. 528 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 113. 529 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre.” Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 111. 530 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Paragraph 117. 523 524 53