52 220. It is a basic principle of law on the international responsibility of the State, embodied in international human rights law, that every State is internationally responsible for any or all act or omission of any of its powers or organs in violation of internationally enshrined rights. Article 1.1 of the American Convention is of fundamental importance in this regard. Regarding acts or omissions of domestic judicial bodies, Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention define the scope of the above-mentioned principle of generation of responsibility for the acts of all State organs. 221. From the foregoing, it is clear that Guatemala may not excuse itself from responsibility for the acts or omissions of its judicial authorities, since this attitude is contrary to the provisions of Article 1.1 related to Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention. 222. In order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In this respect, the European Court has indicated that the proceedings should be considered as a whole, including the decisions of the courts of appeal, and that the function of the international court is to determine if all the proceedings, and the way in which the evidence was produced, were fair39. 223. As it has indicated on other occasions40, the Court has attributions, not to investigate and punish individual conduct, but to establish the international responsibility of States as a result of human rights violations. It is the duty of this Court to determine the violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, or their next of kin. 224. To this end, in view of the characteristics of the case and the nature of the violations alleged by the Commission, the Court must examine all the domestic judicial proceedings in order to obtain an integrated vision of these acts and establish whether or not it is evident that they violated the norms on the obligation to investigate, and the right to be heard and to an effective recourse, which arise from Articles 1.1, 8 and 25 of the Convention. 225. Having thus defined the scope of its jurisdiction, the Court must indicate that it is clear from Article 1.1 that the State is obliged to investigate and punish any violation of the rights embodied in the Convention in order to guarantee such rights; and, in the circumstances of the instant case, this obligation is related to the rights to be heard by the courts and to a prompt and effective recourse, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 226. This Court has clearly indicated that the obligation to investigated should be undertaken 39. Cf. inter alia, Eur. Court H. R., Edward v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34 and Eur. Court H. R., Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33. 40. Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 13, para. 90; Paniagua Morales et al.; case, supra note 13, para. 71; Suárez Rosero case, supra note 25, para. 37 and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 12, para. 134;