30 of International Law that the State must respond for acts and omissions of its agents in their official capacity, even if they overstep the limits of their authority86. 104. On the other hand, regarding the State’s argument according to which norms of the Criminal Code of the National Police would exempt members of its security forces from any responsibility (supra para. 99), the Court reminds that according to a basic principle of international law on State’s responsibility States must fulfill their international treaty obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda); and that domestic law may not be invoked to justify nonfulfillment, as previously indicated by this Court and as set forth in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties87. In order to hold whether a violation of the human rights enshrined in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary to determine, as it is in domestic criminal law, the guilt of the perpetrators or their intention; nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents to whom the violations are attributed88. It is sufficient to demonstrate that public authorities have supported or tolerated the violation of the rights established in the Convention89, that they are responsible for omissions which allowed the perpetration of such violations, or that the State failed to comply with one of its obligations90. 105. As mentioned, two possibilities regarding the circumstances of the deprivation of the life of the alleged victims have been put forward in the instant case. On the one hand, according to the official communiqué issued by the Armed Forces in relation to the operation, Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña would have died while offering resistance91: […] Three criminals were killed when putting up resistance. […] The criminals who died shot at point-blank range at the personnel involved: with a Colt 45 pistol (Wilmer Zambrano), Olmedo Caicedo with a 38 caliber revolver with dum-dum projectiles that hit the chest of one member of the military, who was saved because he was protected by a bulletproof vest; Miguel Caicedo, who tried to take the weapon of one of his guards; he died in the attempt. 106. On the other hand, the version which mostly emerges from the testimonies of the alleged victims’ family members suggests that they were under detention or custody of state agents before being deprived of their lives92: Vanner Omar Caicedo Macias: Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 75, para. 170. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 67; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 61, para. 111. 86 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35. See also; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 7, para. 394, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 14, para. 125. 87 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 91. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 68, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 156. 88 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 91. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 68, and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note50, para. 141. 89 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 91. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 68, and Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre", supra note 8, para. 110. 90 Cf. Official communiqué published by the Armed Forces on the operation carried out in “Barrio Batallón” on March 6, 1993 (application, files on the merits, folio 15). 91 Cf. testimonies presented by Mr. Vanner Omar Caicedo Macías, Mrs. Teresa Susana Cedeño and Mrs. Alicia Marlene Rodríguez Villegas during the public hearing held in the instant case, on May 15, 2007 (supra para. 7). 92