7 responsibility is aggravated by the circumstances in which the facts of the case occurred” (para. 114). 24. If each of these sources of information – particularly, the acquiescence – might, in the opinion of some courts, be sufficient to decide this case in the way in which the Inter-American Court has, the four, examined together, provide more weight to sustain the Court’s decision about the facts of this case, whose specific gravity evidently results from the violation of the right to life, but also from the way in which this was planned, prepared, carried out, and concealed. All the characteristics of the assassination explain the obstruction of justice that, in itself and through the acts and omissions duly described in the judgment, violate the rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 25. It is possible that, when hearing the Myrna Mack Chang case, the members of the Court, who took into consideration some of the material evidence that I have referred to above, opted to abide by these specific sources of information when voting on each of the operative paragraphs of the judgment. I believe that, what is more relevant, finally, is that the unanimous vote on the matters of greatest pertinence concerning the merits of the case reveals that all the members of the Court reached the same conclusions on the facts, their meaning and their characterization from the perspective of the applicable treaty norms, even though they formed this opinion and supported their vote using different ways to access the truth. IV. RESTRICTIONS OR RESERVATIONS TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE STATE 26. I believe it is also interesting to make some observations on the contradiction or at least the discrepancy that sometimes exists between certain declarations made by the State, through representatives who are qualified to issue them, and possible declarations by other organs with competence to decide on contentious matters under domestic legislation. From the perspective of domestic law, this responds to the principle of the separation of powers, which assigns each power specific attributes that the others cannot assume or substitute. Nonetheless, from the perspective of international law, this matter requires clarification of the State’s international responsibility and of the resolutory attributes of an international court, which are incontestable – when this is established in the international norm that has been sovereignly accepted by the State party to a treaty, as indeed happens in light of the American Convention – and must be complied with by the State, owing to its treaty obligations. 27. For the effects of the American Convention and of the exercise of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, the State is considered integrally, as a whole. Accordingly, responsibility is global, it concerns the State as a whole and cannot be subject to the division of authority established in domestic law. At the international level, it is not possible to divide the State, to bind before the Court only one or some of its organs, to grant them representation of the State in the proceeding – without this representation affecting the whole State – and excluding other organs from this treaty regime of responsibility, leaving their actions outside the “treaty control” that involves the jurisdiction of the international court. 28. When the organ that represents the State in its international relations and whose acts bind the former at this level – generally the Head of State or the Minister