2 essential guarantors – from whom exemplary conduct is expected and who are called on to ensure the legitimacy of the acts of all public servants. Violations are also especially grave when they are perpetrated by those specifically responsible for certain obligations of respect and guarantee of human rights, or when they occur in circumstances in which the harmful conduct is extreme and when these circumstances even become part of the facts. All of this increases the “gravity of the facts.” 7. The legal system responds rationally and proportionately to the gravity of the acts through the selection of consequences established by law and applied by the courts. It is not admissible to sanction extremely grave facts with very mild measures, as happens by using fraudulent or superficial proceedings, rejected by international criminal tribunals and also by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within the sphere of its own applicable jurisdiction. It would also not be admissible to adopt more severe measures when the facts are less serious. In both scenarios, this would be incompatible with the principles of necessity, rationality and proportionality that govern the establishment and application of the juridical consequences of illegal acts. 8. In brief, a court may establish that the illegal acts were of a serious nature or that they were aggravated by the conjunction of certain elements or conditions and, therefore, that the corresponding consequences must be more severe. In the integral examination of a case and in the decision adopted, these qualifications – which are not only possible, but also essential – will contribute to the logical juridical definition resulting from the evidence concerning the facts, based on which their consequences are established. This definition refers to the State’s responsibility, which is neither grave nor slight, but merely responsibility for certain acts, of greater or lesser gravity that will justify the nature, rigor and scope of the measure adopted. 9. When I referred to this matter in my opinion in the judgment in the Case of Myrna Mack Chang, I indicated that, in that case, there was “an objective aggravation of the facts, inasmuch as it is significant, in view of the elements of available information […], that this was not an isolated crime, the product of the design of one individual, but that there was an elaborate plan to deprive the victim of her life owing to her activities […] and that security agents and officials took part in the plan. This apparatus, which had important resources of power, placed itself at the service of actions that implied violation of the victim’s most relevant right, the right to life […].” (Opinion cit., para. 44) 10. “One notable aspect of the gravity of this case resides in the obstacles created to the due investigation of the facts and the criminal prosecution of those responsible. […] The aggravated seriousness of the facts must certainly be taken into account when making the reproach that a judgment on human rights violations implies, as in the case of this final ruling. It will be necessary to weigh this in the decisions duly adopted by the domestic criminal jurisdiction...” (id., paras. 45 and 46). 11. My reservations concerning the concept of “aggravated responsibility” do not lead me to dissent from the opinion formulated by my colleagues in the unanimously adopted judgment. The reference to an aggravated responsibility of the State, based on the objective gravity of the facts and with a view to the severity of the punishment, does not modify the reason and pertinence of the judgment against the