33 b) the State, as a subject of international law, is responsible for the behavior of all its bodies, agents, and officers who are part of its organization and act in that capacity. “[W]e must not confuse the responsibility of the State for the violation of the primary rule (of the […] significant international instruments) due to [the] facts attributable to it, with the issue of its obligation (secondary rule) to provide reparation for said violations.” On the other hand, the primary provisions in the instruments that set forth the significant obligations in this matter (the American Convention and the InterAmerican Convention against Torture), establish the obligation to investigate cases in which there is allegedly a violation of said provisions and to ensure compliance with the decision issuing from the respective investigations; c) the principles regarding emergence of the responsibility of the States under international law for acts attributable to them, are different from the principle of international law according to which the States must have the opportunity, first of all, to remedy the violation of an international provision within the framework of their domestic law before their responsibility may be questioned at the international level; and d) in the instant case, the international responsibility of the State arose at the moment that the American Convention was breached “by the arbitrary detention, torture, and summary execution of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri”. Subsequent non-compliance due to lack of effective investigation and punishment is also a violation of its international obligations; however, it is “in no way a central violation or the only source of responsibility of the Peruvian State in the instant case”. Pleadings of the State 70. In its brief with the reply to the application, the State argued that “the human rights violations committed by its agents against the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers and their next of kin have been duly punished, that is, all investigations in this case have been exhausted to establish and identify the perpetrators and participants in the crime against the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers”. Considerations of the Court 71. The Court will now analyze whether the State is internationally responsible for the facts that the Court has found proven. Regarding to the origin of the international responsibility of the State, the Court has already pointed out that “it deems that the international responsibility of the State can be generated by acts or omissions of any branch or body of the State, whatever its hierarchy, that violate the American Convention”.68 72. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that 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 that can be 68 Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 19, para. 72; and see Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, para. 142; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 163; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 154; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 19, para. 168; Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 109; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 210; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 220.