34 attributed, under the rules of international law, to the act or omission of any public authority constitutes an act imputable to the State and which entails its responsibility as established in the Convention. According to Article 1(1), any exercise of public power that violates the rights recognized by the Convention is illegal. Whenever a State organ or official, or a public entity violates one of those rights, this constitutes a failure in the duty to respect the rights and freedoms set forth in that Article.69 73. The Court deems that the aim of International Human Rights Law is to provide the individual with means of protection of the internationally recognized human rights vis-à-vis the State. Under international jurisdiction, the parties and the subject matter of the controversy are, by definition, different than under domestic jurisdiction.70 As it has stated on previous occasions,71 in the instant case the Court has the authority to establish the international responsibility of the State and its legal consequences, but not to investigate and punish the individual behavior of the agents of the State who may have participated in the violations. 74. The State argued that the human rights violations committed by its agents against the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers had been duly punished and, therefore, it asked the Court to find that there has been no violation by Peru. 75. However, the Court notes that the complaint filed before the Inter-American Commission on July 2, 1991, as well as the opening of the case by the Commission on June 12, 1992, took place before completion of the domestic proceeding that the State refers to, which ended with the judgment rendered on November 9, 1993 by the Third Criminal Chamber of El Callao, upheld by the judgment of the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on June 9, 1994 (supra paras. 67.p and 67.q). As a consequence thereof, when the case was brought before the interAmerican system, the acts that generated the alleged violations had already been committed. This Court must call to mind that the international responsibility of the State arises immediately when the internationally illegal act attributed to it is committed, although it can only be demanded once the State has had the opportunity to correct it by its own means. Possible subsequent reparation under domestic legal venue does not inhibit the Commission or the Court from hearing the case that has already begun under the American Convention. Therefore, the Court cannot accept the position of the State that it duly investigated, to find that the State has not violated the Convention. 76. The Court also deems that, in accordance with what was set forth in the chapter on proven facts, the responsibility of the State is exacerbated by the existence in Peru, at the time of the facts, of a systematic practice of human rights violations, extra-legal executions, of persons suspected of belonging to armed groups, carried out by agents of the State following orders of military and police commanders.72 Said violations violate international jus cogens. Likewise, the fact that the alleged victims in this case were children must be taken into account in establishing aggravated responsibility. 69 Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 22, para. 163; Legal Status and Rights of Migrants without Documents. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 76; Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 178; and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 56. 70 See Case of Cesti Hurtado. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 26, 1999. Series C No. 49, para. 47. 71 72 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 68, para. 223. See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 139.