80 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: [... t]he following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever [...]: a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) taking of hostages; c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. [...] 207. The Court considers that it has been proved that, at the time of the facts of this case, an internal conflict was taking place in Guatemala (supra 121 b). As has previously been stated (supra 143 and 174), instead of exonerating the State from its obligations to respect and guarantee human rights, this fact obliged it to act in accordance with such obligations. Therefore, and as established in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, confronted with an internal armed conflict, the State should grant those persons who are not participating directly in the hostilities or who have been placed hors de combat for whatever reason, humane treatment, without any unfavorable distinctions. In particular, international humanitarian law prohibits attempts against the life and personal integrity of those mentioned above, at any place and time. 208. Although the Court lacks competence to declare that a State is internationally responsible for the violation of international treaties that do not grant it such competence, it can observe that certain acts or omissions that violate human rights, pursuant to the treaties that they do have competence to apply, also violate other international instruments for the protection of the individual, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and, in particular, common Article 3. 209. Indeed, there is a similarity between the content of Article 3, common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the provisions of the American Convention and other international instruments regarding non-derogable human rights (such as the right to life and the right not to be submitted to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment). This Court has already indicated in the Las Palmeras Case (2000), that the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions may be taken into consideration as elements for the interpretation of the American Convention124. 210. Based on Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the Court considers that Guatemala is obliged to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in it125 and to organize the public sector so as to guarantee persons within its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights126. This is essential, independently of whether those 124 Las Palmeras Case. Preliminary Objections. paras. 32-34. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, 125 Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, paras. 55 and 56; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 161; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 165. 126 Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 125, paras. 55 and 56; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 175 and 176; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 166 and 167.