16 54. As a reaction of the universal legal conscience (which to me constitutes the ultimate material source of the whole Law), in our times a truly universal legal system of absolute prohibition of torture, of forced disappearances of people and of summary and extra-legal executions has been constituted. The said prohibition belongs to the scope of jus cogens. And said crimes against humanity (located in the confluence of International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law) as pointed out by the Court in its Judgment in the case of Almonacid and has just repeated so in this Judgment of the case La Cantuta, affect not only those victimized, but also humankind as a whole (para. 225). 55. Thus the State duty of investigating, suing and punishing those who were liable, in order to avoid the repetition of such serious facts as the ones of this case. Furthermore, the Court added that, "(...) The State shall not allege any law or domestic law provision so as to be exempted from the Court order to investigate and criminally punish those responsible for the events of La Cantuta. Particularly, as it has proceeded since the passing of Judgment by this Court in the case of Barrios Altos versus Perú, the State shall not apply amnesty laws again, as they generate no effects in the future (...), nor shall it allege prescription, non-retroactivity of criminal law, nor the principle of non bis in idem (...), or any other similar responsibility exemption so as to remain free from its duty to investigate and punish those responsible. (...) (...) Also, by virtue of the effectiveness of the collective guarantee mechanism set forth under the Convention, the States Parties must cooperate with each other so as to eradicate the impunity of the violations committed in this case through the prosecution, and, should it be the case, the punishment of the responsible parties” (paras. 226-227). 56. Legal conscience has finally awaken to reveal at present with transparence the occurrence of true State crimes, which are brought before a human rights international court (as this Inter-American Court), and to promptly react against them, -which would probably be unthinkable, or could not be anticipated, some decades ago. However, this is what happens today, as testified by the Judgments of this Court in the cases of Barrios Altos vs. Peru (of March 14, 2001), of Myrna Mack vs. Guatemala (of November 25, 2003), of Masacre de Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala (of April 29, 2004 and November 19, 2004), of Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia (of March 7, 2004), of the massacre of Comunidad Moiwana vs. Surinam (of June 15, 2005), of Masacres de Ituango vs. Colombia (of July 01, 2006), of Goiburú y Otros vs. Paraguay (of September 22, 2006), of Almonacid Arellano y Otros vs. Chile (of September 26, 2006), and of Prisión de Castro Castro vs. Peru (of November 25, 2006), among others. 57. Along this jurisprudencial evolution, I have insisted, in successive Opinions I let the Court know, in the occurrence of true State crimes, with their legal consequences. Not long ago, in my Separate Opinion in the case of the Castro Castro Prison (of November 25, 2006), in this same ordinary term of sessions of the Court, I made a warning regarding the recurrence of the State crime and to remember the forgotten legal thought on the matter (paras. 40-51). And I added that the conception of a State crime "entails to the “progressive development” itself of International Law. It presupposes the existence of former and above the State rights , the violation of which, to the detriment of human being, is particularly serious and damages the international legal system itself. The latter provides universal values, as it inhibits said serious and damaging violations, and it seeks to guarantee the international ordre juridique. Furthermore, it expresses that the belief that certain behaviors -which constitute or are part of a State policy - are inadmissible and generate the aggravated international liability of the State, with its legal consequences. It signals the path to be followed towards the construction of an organized international community, of the new jus gentium of the 21st century, of the International Law for humankind.” (...) The State crime effectively entails legal consequences, -this being inevitable-, with direct incidence in the reparations owed to the victims and their next of kin. One of the consequences