14 responsibility of the State will continue to be unconvincing, in addition to being conceptually incomplete and juridically inconsistent” (paras. 53-55).20 V. Epilogue: Reassertion of the Primacy of the Law over Force 41. I cannot conclude this Separate Opinion without a brief epilogue, with the aim of insisting on the significance of the general principles of Law in the application of the American Convention on Human Rights, and on the necessary and unavoidable primacy of Law over force. As regards the first point, I wish to reiterate my understanding, stated in my Separate Opinion in the case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre (merits, 2004), with regard to Guatemala, that the principle of humanity permeates all the corpus juris of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, both in treaties and unwritten; it is, therefore, "necessary to take into account, at the same time, international treaty law, also general international law” (para. 9)21. 42. next to And I added, in that same Separate Opinion, that "In its jurisprudence constante, the Inter-American Court, interpreting and applying the American Convention, has consistently invoked the general principles of law.22 Among the latter, those that are truly fundamental in nature constitute the substratum of the juridical order itself, revealing the right to the Law to which all human beings are entitled.23 In the domain of International Human Rights Law, this category of fundamental principles includes the principle of the dignity of the human person and that of the inalienable nature of the rights that are inherent to that person. In its Advisory Opinion No. 18, on the Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, (2003), the Inter-American Court explicitly referred to both principles.24 . Also see, in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Complementarity between State Responsibility and Individual Responsibility for Grave Violations of Human Rights: The Crime of State Revisited", in International Responsibility Today - Essays in Memory of O. Schachter (ed. M. Ragazzi), Leiden, M. Nijhoff, 2005, pp. 253-269. 20 . Also see, in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, "La Convention Américaine relative aux Droits de l'Homme et le droit international général", in Droit international, droits de l'homme et juridictions internationales (eds. G. Cohen-Jonathan y J.-F. Flauss), Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2004, pp. 59-71. 21 . See Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I-A Ct of HR), Case of the “Five Pensioners” versus Peru (Judgment of 28.02.2003), para. 156; I-A Ct of HR, Cantos versus Argentina case (Prel. Obj., Judgment of 07.09.2001), para. 37; I-A Ct of HR, Case of Baena Ricardo et al. versus Panama (Judgment of 02.02.2001), para. 98; I-A Ct of HR, Case of Neira Alegría versus Peru (Prel. Obj., Judgment of 11.12.1991), para. 29; I-A Ct of HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez versus Honduras (Judgment of 29.07.1988), para. 184; and also see I-A Ct of HR, Advisory Opinion No. 17, on the Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child (of 28.08.2002), paras. 66 and 87; I-A Ct of HR, Advisory Opinion No. 16, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of Guarantees of Due Legal Process (of 01.10.1999), paras. 58, 113 and 128; I-A Ct of HR, Advisory Opinion No. 14, on International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (of 09.12.1994), para. 35. 22 . A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, volume III, Porto Alegre/Brasil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 524-525. 23 24 . Paragraph 157 of said Advisory Opinion.