12 ultimate aim, which is precisely the realization of justice. As long as attempts to avoid the issue continue, treatment of the central chapter of the law of international responsibility of the State will continue to be unconvincing, in addition to being conceptually incomplete and juridically inconsistent. With this, the construction and consolidation of the true Rule of Law will regrettably be postponed, and in the framework of the latter, that of the true right to the Law, that is, the right to a legal order that effectively safeguards the fundamental rights of the human person” (paras. 54 and 55). VII. Coexistence of the International Responsibility of the State and the Individual 37. I do not consider that there is any legal impediment to the concomitant determination of the international responsibility of the State and the criminal responsibility of the individual in the terms indicated above (para. 25, supra) in relation to the American Convention, which reveals the interaction between the national and international legal orders in this domain of the protection of human rights. In this regard, it has been considered that, since the facts determined by the Historical Clarification Committee (CEH) coincided with crimes classified in both domestic and international laws, and since the respective conducts were classified as “the most serious on the social scale,” meriting “the most severe social penalties,” a mere “ethical reproach” was necessary but insufficient; consequently, for such conduct, “the imposition of a penalty” was envisaged. And it was added that: "If the reproach is only moral the whole system for the prevention of crime and the protection of the legal rights established by criminal law is distorted. If a criminal penalty is not applied in the case of such serious acts, society may consider that acts that were prohibited were permitted or, at the very least, consider that they were justified."45 The struggle against impunity is based on the foregoing. However, at the strictly international level the matter has still not been developed sufficiently, and this reflects the persisting attitude of dealing with the international responsibility of the State and the criminal responsibility of the individual separately and in a compartmentalized manner. 38. At the actual stage of insufficient development of the issue, the international human rights tribunals (the European and Inter-American Courts and, in future, the African Court) focus on the former (State international responsibility), while the ad hoc international criminal tribunals (for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) deal with the latter (the international criminal responsibility of the individual). But the international responsibility of the State and the individual are complementary. However, when focusing on the international responsibility of the State for violations of the rights it protects, the American Convention on Human Rights does not fail to indicate – in its often overlooked Article 32(1)46 – that “every person has responsibilities to his family, his community, and mankind.” 45 C. Paz and Paz Bailey, La Tipificación de Violaciones en Contra de Derechos Fundamentales y los Hechos de Violencia Vinculados al Enfrentamiento Armado, Guatemala, CECI/Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales de Guatemala, 1998, p. 2. 46 Regarding the correlation between obligations and rights.