5 protection they have contracted4. This is the thesis which, if widely accepted in the present domain of protection, can tighten the links of solidarity between States and within them, tending to maximize the observance of human rights. Its considerable potential of application ought to be developed. 18. Thus, there does not appear to me to be any doubt that, both an act or an omission, on the part of any of the powers of the State - the Legislative Power making no exception, - may generate the international responsibility of the State for violations of the human rights conventionally recognized, without any need to seek for an additional subjective element of fault (culpa), and the qualification of that act or omission. The responsibility of the State is, in this sense, absolute. 19. It is perfectly possible to enter the domain of the law of the international responsibility of the State, in order to identify the conceptual bases of the duty of prevention of human rights violations. More than possible, it may become necessary. This is so because such violations constitute likewise violations of the obligation of protection - enshrined in treaties, - imposed by the International Law of Human Rights, and because the international responsibility of the State for such violations is governed at a time by the norms of human rights treaties as well as the general principles of international law. 20. In fact, one cannot exclude the possibility that a given question or aspect may not be sufficiently or clearly regulated by the provisions of a human rights treaty, therefore requiring recourse to the general principles of international law in the process of its interpretation and application. This in no way affects the thesis of the specificity and autonomy of the International Law of Human Rights 5, given that the distinct areas of Law appear often in contact with each other (e.g., civil or penal procedural law and constitutional and administrative law, constitutional law and international law), with the unity of the juridical solution prevailing in the long run. 21. In my understanding, the international responsibility of the State is engaged as from the moment it fails to comply with an international obligation, irrespective of the verification of fault or culpa on its part, and of the occurrence of an additional damage. Rather than a presumed psychological attitude or fault on the part of the agents of public power, what is really determining is the objective conduct of the State (the due diligence to avoid human rights violations). One can, thus, certainly arrive at the configuration of the objective or "absolute" responsibility of the State as from the violation of its conventional international obligations as to the protection of human rights6. On such objective responsibility rests the duty of prevention. IV. Objective Responsibility of the States Parties. 4. It is not surprising that this current of thought is associated with the more recent evolution of international law, amidst the new realities and circumstances of the contemporary world. 5. Autonomy which I support and develop in my Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, vol. 1, Porto Alegre/Brasil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1997, pp. 17-447. 6. Jules Basdevant, "Règles générales du droit de la paix", 58 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1936) pp. 670-674; Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, El Derecho Internacional Contemporáneo, Madrid, Ed. Tecnos, 1980, pp. 319-325, and cf. pp. 328-329.