104. With respect to the State’s responsibility for an internationally wrongful act, it should be recalled that, since its first judgment in a contentious case, the Inter-American Court has indicated that Article 1(1) is essential for determining whether a violation of the human rights recognized in the Convention can be attributed to a State Party. Indeed, this article imposes on States Parties the fundamental obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights recognized in the Convention. Any impairment of those rights that can be attributed, under the rules of international law, to the action or omission of any public authority constitutes an act attributable to the State, which implies its responsibility under the terms set forth in the Convention. 144 105. Thus, the Court has indicated that the State’s international responsibility may be based on acts or omissions, by any of its powers or organs, that violate the American Convention, and is generated immediately by the internationally wrongful act attributed to the State. 145 The Court has also indicated that an internationally wrongful act exists when conduct consisting of an action or omission: a) is attributable to the State under international law, and b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State. 146 106. Regarding the content of the obligations to respect under Article 1(1) of the Convention, the Court has stated that “in accordance with Article 1(1) any exercise of public authority that violates the rights embodied in the Convention is unlawful. In this regard, any circumstances in which a body or official of the State or of a public institution inappropriately abridges one of those rights constitutes a failure to comply with the duty to respect rights enshrined in that article.” 147 This conclusion is independent of whether the organ or official has acted in contravention of the provisions of domestic law or exceeded the limits of his authority, since it is a principle of international law that the State is responsible for the acts of its agents carried out in their official capacity and for their omissions, even if they act outside their sphere of competence or in violation of domestic law. 148 Similarly, according to the articles on State responsibility, “the conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity.” 149 107. This Court has also indicated that, as a general rule, and in accordance with Article 7 of International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, any conduct, including ultra vires acts, of a State organ or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State. This rule has only one exception, and that is when said organ or person is not acting in that capacity, i.e. when the 144 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 164, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, footnote 63. 145 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, para. 133; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 112, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 88. 146 Cf. Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 134, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, footnote 51. See also, United Nations General Assembly, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/RES/56/83, January 28, 2002, Article 2. 147 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 169, and Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 108. 148 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 170, and Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 222. Cf. Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, footnote 237, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 142. Article 7 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts drafted by the UN International Law Commission. See also, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986. 149 30