37. It is highly significant that, in establishing the international responsibility of the State in the instant case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, the Inter-American Court, when it found that Articles 5 and 4 of the American Convention were breached, explicitly recognized that an international juridical system of absolute prohibition of all forms of torture and extra-legal executions has been constituted in our day, and it is now part of the sphere of international jus cogens (paras. 111112 and 128, respectively). Therefore, there is an aggravated international responsibility36 (for the wrongful acts committed and the persons murdered, two children), with direct consequences regarding reparations. 38. Said responsibility entails, for the respondent State, among others, the obligation to render justice in its domestic law, investigating the facts and punishing those responsible.37 As stated in the instant Judgment of the InterAmerican Court, the “extreme gravity” of the instant case was underlined, in the Peruvian domestic legal system, by the Third Criminal Chamber of El Callao itself (para. 142). In the international legal system, the special gravity of certain violations of the rights of the human person is set forth in some international instruments. 39. Let us recall, for example, that the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 specify the “grave breaches”,38 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977 to those Conventions enshrine “fundamental guarantees”, 39 which contain the absolute prohibition, inter alia, of murder and any form of torture (both physical and mental).40 The search for a hierarchy at both the compulsory level (jus cogens) and the operative level (erga omnes obligations of protection), as well as the definition of internationally wrongful acts (grave violations of human rights) has, precisely, led to the current establishment of the aggravated international responsibility of the State. 40. In the instant Judgment, in the chapter on the international responsibility of the State, the Inter-American Court brings to mind that said responsibility “is immediately generated by the internationally wrongful act” ascribed to the State, and any actions under domestic venue do not inhibit it from continuing to hear the case, in a proceeding that has begun before it, since its role is to ensure due protection of the rights enshrined in the American Convention and the reparations for the violations committed (paras. 75-76). And it added that, in the instant case, "the responsibility of the State is aggravated by the existence in Peru, at the time of the facts, of a systematic practice of human rights violations, including extralegal executions, of persons suspected of belonging to armed groups, carried out by State agents under orders by military and police commanders. Said grave violations breach international jus cogens. Likewise, in establishing aggravated responsibility, it is necessary to take into account that the victims in this case were children” (para. 76). 41. The Court also expressed its concern regarding the existence of a “situation of grave impunity” in the instant case (para. 148), and it added the statement – which today is part of its jurisprudence constante – that “in accordance with the obligations undertaken by the States under the convention, no domestic legal 36 . See, in this regard, my Separate Opinion in the Case of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala(Judgment of 25.11.2003), paras. 41-55. 37 . 25. 38 . See my Separate Opinion in the Plan de Sánchez Massacre case (Judgment of 29.04.2004), para. 39 . Protocol I, Article 75; Protocol II, Articles 4-6. 40 . Protocol I, Article 75(2)(a); Protocol II, Articles 4(2)(a). Article 50/51/130/147.