2 "the classic vision of a single, undifferentiated regime of international responsibility no longer corresponds to the actual stage in the evolution of this issue in contemporary international law. The customary search for a normative and conceptual hierarchy in the international legal system (illustrated by the introduction of jus cogens) has, I believe, established aggravated international responsibility in cases of particularly serious violations of human rights and international crimes, with all its juridical consequences. Because of their particular gravity, international crimes and violations of jus cogens affect the basic values of the international community as a whole" (para. 33). 6. This Court’s judgment on reparations in the Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre is conceived and reasoned in the same way as its previous judgment on merits in this case. The different forms of reparation ordered by the Court in this judgment correspond to the aggravating circumstances of the human rights violations established by the Court in the corresponding judgment on merits. The State’s aggravated international responsibility derives from those circumstances (although this is not meant to suggest an inadequate analogy with categories of domestic criminal law.) 7. Indeed, in a case such as this, the facts speak for themselves and eloquently reveal that, contrary to what some international legal doctrine insists on eluding or ignoring, State crimes do exist. The State’s intention to cause damage when the facts occurred was reliably proved, and established its international responsibility based on negligence or guilt. The human rights violations, victimizing numerous members of a specific ethnic group, were perpetrated in the name of a State policy. 8. How can the existence of State crime be denied? How do international jurists who surreptitiously support State sovereignty answer this question, bearing in mind the facts of this case? How long will they continue to close their eyes to the reality of the facts? How long will they shortsightedly obstruct the realization of justice at the international level? How long will they delay the development of the law on the State’s international responsibility? How long will they postpone the creation and consolidation of a genuine rule of law and, within that framework, a genuine right to law? 9. Since State crime is a reality, as the facts of the instant case prove conclusively, the concomitant determination of the State’s international responsibility and the criminal liability of the perpetrators is essential. Even though the InterAmerican Court can only deal with the former, there are complementarities between the responsibility of the State and that of the individual. It is not possible to deal with individual responsibility alone, as contemporary international criminal law does. Convergence must be promoted between the latter and international human rights law, as convergences between international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international human rights law, at the normative and also the hermeneutic and operational levels have been intensified over the last decade – as I have been affirming for years – in order to maximize the protection of human rights. 1 10. The convergences are necessary to foster this protection, particularly when the public power structure is distorted and placed at the service of repression (and 1 . Cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, tomo I, 1a. ed., Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed., 1997, cap. VIII, pp. 269-352; A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, 2001, chap. V, pp. 183-265; A.A. Cançado Trindade, Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, Derecho Internacional de los Refugiados y Derecho Internacional Humanitario - Aproximaciones y Convergencias, Geneva, ICRC, [2001], pp. 1-66.