2 the effectiveness of the relevant norms of the American Convention in the ambit of the Peruvian domestic law. Nevertheless, as rightly pointed out by the Court in the present Judgment on reparations (paragraph 76), it is not up to it to examine the extent of such reforms, as those Decrees-Laws (although partly reformed) do not have a bearing on the juridical situation of the victim, Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides. 6. There is an indissociability between the general duties of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention and the duty of reparation set forth in Article 63.1 of this latter. Such indissociability finds expression in the obligation of the State to take positive measures of effective protection (effet utile) of the human rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction. Once established the international responsibility of the State, the source (fons et origo) of which may rest on an internationally unlawful fact act or omission - (the adoption of a law, or a judicial sentence, or an administrative act, or an omission of any of the State's Powers), the State at issue being under the duty to put an end to the generated situation of violation, as well as, when appropriate, to provide reparation for the consequences of the wrongful situation created3. 7. It is thus clear that, not all that is legal in domestic law is so in the International Law of Human Rights, and the State conduct ought to conform itself with the conventional obligations of protection which bind the State Party to the human rights treaty at issue. In any way, the Inter-American Court can, and ought to, decide that a State Party to the American Convention is to leave without effects - according to the measures of its domestic law - a sentence of a national tribunal (irrespective of the hierarchy) incompatible with the Convention, - as it has done in the present Judgment (resolutory point n. 4). II. The Forms of the Duty of Reparation. 8. As to the second point (resolutory point n. 6), the Court has decided, in my view correctly, that the State ought to grant the victim, Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, the means to undertake and conclude his studies of university or superior level in a center of recognized academic quality. The determination on the part of the Court, in the present Judgment, of the damage to the project of life of the victim as well as of the need to provide reparation for it, constitutes, in my understanding, a form of satisfaction. As this Court has pointed out in its Judgment on reparations (of 27.11.1998) in the case of Loayza Tamayo versus Peru, the complaint of damage to the project of life "is definitely not the same as the immediate and direct harm to a victim's assets", but it rather seeks to fulfill "the full self-actualization of the person concerned" (paragraph 147). And the Court added that the project of life "is akin to the concept of personal fulfillment, which in turn is based on the options that an individual may have for leading his life and achieving the goal that he sets for himself. Strictly speaking, those options are the manifestation and guarantee of freedom. An individual can hardly be described as truly free if he does not have options to pursue in life and to carry that life to its natural conclusion. Those options, in themselves, have an important existential value. Hence, their elimination or curtailment objectively abridges freedom and constitutes the loss of a valuable asset, a loss that this Court cannot disregard" (paragraph 148). 9. In the public hearing before this Court on 06 September 2001, the victim, Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, affirmed that "what I do want is to accomplish myself 3 . Cf., to this effect, my Concurring Opinion in the case of Barrios Altos, concerning Peru (Merits, Judgment of 14.03.2001).