I.  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT: LEGAL SOURCES, PRINCIPLES AND ACTORS In any case, it should be recalled that, where a non-State actor is expected to observe certain human rights standards, this does not in any way lessen the State’s primary responsibility to protect and fulfil human rights. In this respect, it is important to note that modern rules of State responsibility consider that, under certain circumstances, States are also responsible for acts carried out by non-State actors. For example, it has been considered that the State’s responsibility could be engaged by the conduct of nonState actors when:  The group has been empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority;  The group is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, the State in carrying out the conduct;  The group has violated international legal obligations and subsequently becomes the new Government of the State;  The group has violated international legal obligations and subsequently succeeds in establishing a new State in part of the territory of a preexisting State or in a territory under its administration.29 So if a non-State actor, such as a paramilitary group, is acting in support of or as an agent of the State authorities in an armed conflict, then the State is also responsible for the actions of this armed group as an extension of its own legal obligations. Finally, even individuals who are linked neither to the State nor to an armed group are subject to international criminal law, in particular regarding war crimes, insofar as a connection exists between their conduct and the armed conflict.   29 See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part II, p. 26. 27