4 However, I have prepared this opinion with regard to the former case, rather than the latter. 17. Without prejudice to the preceding statement, I would like to express my concern owing to the scope of certain concepts – such as those indicated in the preceding paragraph and others – and their possible consequences. This concern responds to the fact that those concepts and other similar ones, particularly the one relating to “State crime” imply, if they are examined literally, attributing conducts to the State, concentrating responsibilities in the State, and categorizing criminal acts as policies that can be attributed to the State, as a result of the conduct of those who occupied senior public posts and had or exercised excessive powers, and also the accumulation of responsibilities in the State itself. 18. Some of these expressions occupy a central position and have been carefully examined in enlightening texts on penal and criminal matters that seek to clarify responsibilities, to reveal the serious crimes hidden by a mountain of “justifications,” “denials” and “neutralizations,” and to bring the perpetrators out of the shadows. In this regard, the illustrative texts on State crimes by Stanley Cohen and, very recently, the presentation made by Raúl Zaffaroni at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium and at the International Criminal Law Congress in Mexico (2006) should be recalled. 19. Evidently, I do not question the denunciations, whose rationale I share, but I would call attention to the use that could be made of expressions subject to different interpretations, which could lead to a situation where justifications are accepted and the door to impunity could be opened. Hence, I am not referring to an error, but rather to a risk. 20. State terrorism means that the State becomes a terrorist, sowing fear and alarm among the population, and causing anguish that gravely disturbs the peace that should reign in society. State policy implies that the State itself – a complex and diverse entity, that is obviously not a physical person, an individual, and cannot be reduced to a criminal gang – undertakes a plan and executes it through certain conducts that are shaped to fulfill the purpose and strategy designed by the State itself. Likewise, the notion of a State crime, if we abide by the literal meaning of the expression, it based on the assumption that the State commits crimes. 21. The expression “State crime” – and, in its own very similar ambit, the concept of State terrorism and the political trend of the State applicable to this matter – has the significant and plausible connotation that it embodies and exhibits conducts of the most reprehensible nature – teratology of criminality – anchored in discourses that attempt to be persuasive and, at times, have been able to permeate some sectors of the population. Under its wing, millions of human beings have been made victims, for numerous purposes including security, respect for tradition, preservation of cultural values, and social peace. Therefore, I recognize the effectiveness of the fulminating expressions aimed at discovering the characteristics of these criminal events and halting the arguments put forward by their authors. 22. It is evident that the violations, isolated or massive, are committed by State agents or by other individuals whose conduct entails the international responsibility of the State, which is the material party in international human rights proceedings, and which, in this capacity and pursuant to the responsibility that may be attributed to it, can receive the ruling and the sentence delivered by the Court. Human rights