20 79. According to Article 1(1) of the Convention, which has frequently been interpreted and applied by the Court, the States are obliged to respect and guarantee the human rights established therein. Consequently, the international responsibility of the State is based on acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs, irrespective of their status, that violate the American Convention. It is a principle of international law that the State responds for the acts and omissions of its agents acting in their official capacity, even if they overstep the limits of their authority.54 In order to establish whether a violation of the rights embodied in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to determine, as it is under domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention, nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents to whom the acts that violate the Convention are attributed;55 rather, it is sufficient to show that acts or omissions have been verified that have permitted the perpetration of such violations or that the State has an obligation with which it has failed to comply.56 A) Obligation to respect the rights embodied in Articles 4, 5 and 7 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention 80. The parties do not agree that the perpetration of the kidnapping, the alleged illtreatment and the death of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz can be attributed to the acts of State agents or of a group in which they participated or to which they acquiesced. 81. The Commission maintains that the facts occurred in the context of a pattern of systematic human rights violations that included the generalized and systematic practice of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions between 1989 and 1993. In this regard, the Commission affirms that “[t]his pattern of systematic human rights violations was in operation in the case of the victims, who were executed by the group calling itself the Rodrigo Franco Commando, composed of State agents.” Hence, the Commission concludes that, “given the prior activities of the victims, the context of the situation of internal conflict in Peru at the time of the facts, and the nature of the group that perpetrated these facts, it is evident that the motive for the crime was ‘to control’ the trade union disturbances that were occurring in the context of the labor dispute, a right guaranteed by the Peruvian Constitution, by ‘neutralizing’ the trade union leadership in order to discourage social protest.” 82. Based on these arguments, the Commission alleges that the alleged victims were “deprived of their liberty unlawfully and arbitrarily […] by the members of a commando led by State agents,” in violation of Article 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. It also states that the treatment to which the alleged victims were subjected in the moments prior to their execution constituted acts that violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. Lastly, it maintains that “the murder of the victims was an extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary execution, for which the State is responsible,” and asks the Court to declare that the State violated its obligation to respect the right to life of the alleged victims established in Article 4 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, “by planning and 54 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 164, 169 and 170. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 67; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 111; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 108. 55 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 68; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 156 and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54, para. 112. 56 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 91; Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 54, paras. 134 and 172. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 68; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54, para. 112; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia supra note 54, para. 110.