8 V. The Emerging of the State’s International Responsibility and the Principle of Proportionality. 29. In the proceedings of the present case (written and oral phases), there is a detail in the arguments presented before the Court that cannot go unnoticed. With the best of the intentions – to seek justice, - the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights made emphasis of the lack of proportionality in the use of force by the state agents in the incursion of the Prison of Castro Castro, while the representation of the victims and their next of kin highlighted as the central matter the illegality of the original act (aggravated by the intent). This leads me to a brief recapitulation of the origin or emergence of the State’s international responsibility. 30. Actually, I had already examined the matter of the origin of the State’s international responsibility in my Concurring Opinion (paras. 1-40) in the case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al. versus Chile, Judgment of 02.05.2001); it is not my intention to repeat here the vast considerations developed by me in this sense in that Concurring Vote, but leave in this Concurring Vote this very brief reference to them. There I stated an understanding in the sense that the international responsibility of a State Party in a human rights treaty arises exactly at the time on which an international illegal fact – act or omissionimputable to said State occurs (tempus commisi delicti), in violation of its obligations under the treaty in question. 31. After referring again to the matter in my Concurring Opinion (para. 4) in the case of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.25.2003), I allowed myself to reiterate, in my Concurring Opinion (para. 14, and cf. paras. 11-18), in the case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers versus Peru (Judgment of 07.08. 2004), my understanding in the sense that "(...) In International Law on Human Rights, the State’s international responsibility arises exactly when the violation of the rights of a human being occurs, that is, at the time when the international illegal act attributable to the State occurs. Within the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights, the State’s international responsibility may arise due to acts or omissions of any power or body or agent of the State, regardless of their hierarchy, that violates the rights protected by the Convention. 20" 32. In synthesis, in my opinion, there cannot be any doubt, according to the most lucid doctrine on International Law; that the State’s international responsibility (as a subject of International Law) arises when the illegal act (act or omission), which violates an international obligation, attributable to the State occurs. 21 In the cas d'espèce, the State’s international responsibility arose at the time of the armed incursion (with animus agressionis) of armed state agents to the Prison of Castro Castro. . Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” versus Chile, Judgment of 02.05.2001, Series C, n. 73, p. 47, para. 72; and cf. Concurring Opinion of the Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, p. 76, para. 16, and cf. pp. 85-87, paras. 31-33. 20 . F.V. García Amador, Principios de Derecho Internacional que Rigen la Responsabilidad - Análisis Crítico de la Concepción Internacional, Madrid, Escuela de Funcionarios Internacionales, 1963, p. 33; Roberto Ago, "Second Report on State Responsibility", Yearbook of the [U.N.] International Law Commission (1970)-II, pp. 179-197; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "The Birth of State Responsibility and the Nature of the Local Remedies Rule", 56 Revue de Droit international de sciences diplomatiques et politiques - Ginebra (1978) pp. 165-166 and 176; P.-M. Dupuy, "Le fait générateur de la responsabilité internationale des États", 188 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye (1984) pp. 25 y 50; J. Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge, University Press, 2002, pp. 77-78. 21