2 conclusions reached by this Tribunal. The circumstance that the agents may have erred in their evaluation of the material result of their illicit conduct does not exclude the profound illegality of it and, consequently, the attack affects one of the fundamental rights contained in the American Convention. 7. The reflection of this international Tribunal can be reinforced and supported by elements from criminal law. Seen from another perspective, which helps to establish the rationality of the judgment, the issue can be understood under the theory of attempted homicide, that is to say, a theory of iter criminis by which the integrity of a legally protected sphere and the right which protects it are affected or put in grave danger. The criminal denomination applicable under this theory is also the deprivation of life (by attempt), even though the aggressor may not have attained the goal sought. Of course –and I emphasize, in order to avoid any misunderstanding- the Inter-American Court is not a criminal tribunal, nor does it rule upon homicide, nor determine the existence of a punishable attempt. As a result we should not speak of crimes or offenses consummated or attempted, but rather of violations of human rights, and thus reserve the categories and denominations to the appropriate fields of law. 8. Nonetheless, this unequivocal exclusion of criminal jurisdiction and the crimes identified therein does not prevent the Tribunal from reflecting the techniques administered by the criminal law in its analysis and for the purpose of the defense of legally protected spheres. The criminal law includes an extensive development of the issue that now concerns me and which determined the Court’s ruling with regard to the survivors of the massacre. From this jurisprudential development and its conclusions, the Tribunal, which hears cases with regard to the violation of human rights may benefit, for its own mission. 9. In my opinion, the evaluation performed by the Court in this particular case, characterized by specific facts, does not necessarily imply, in an of itself, that in our subject of jurisdiction the concept of attempt –with this or any other denominationhas been introduced, as a degree of violation of all human rights, independent of the nature of these violations and the circumstances that occur in the corresponding attack. This issue will have to be reexamined in other cases and the appropriate reaches and limitations must be explored in the variety of situations that it may arise. The door remains open, then, for a future clarification of the subject until an adequate general concept may be reached. 10. In the same period of sessions in which the Court adopted the Judgment in the Case of the Rochela Massacre, the Court also issued its Judgment in the Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, also on May 11, 2007. In this case, the path was cleared, I hope definitively, by the procedural reflection with regard to the nature and reach of certain acts by the State, denominated by the expression “recognition of international responsibility” or called, as a whole “acquiescence.” 11. It is true that the human rights proceedings analyze the allegations from which the State’s international responsibility arises for certain illicit conduct by its agents – or by third parties- which is attributable to it, with the respective legal consequences. But it is also true that each of these acts of acquiescence has its own character and carries with it necessary effects, which it is indispensable to note and evaluate, even when none of these, to our knowledge, carries with it a definitive conclusion to the proceedings and the establishment of an “official” version with regard to the events and the validity of the allegations. Both of these are determined