PART 2.1 Velásquez Rodríguez Case,120 in which the Court found that the disappearance of the complainant had been carried out by State officials. More importantly for the present discussion, the Court further held that “even had that fact not been proven,” the State would have been liable for its lack of due diligence in preventing or punishing the violative conduct of putatively private actors.121 The Court confirmed that responsibility is incurred when “a violation of … rights … has occurred with the support or the acquiescence of the Government, [or when] the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible” (para. 173). As noted above, attribution is not enough: there must also be breach of an obligation. In this case, liability derived from a breach, by the State, of the rule contained in article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights that required States parties to “respect  ” the rights guaranteed by the Convention and to “ensure” their full and free exercise to all persons. In a judgement with implications for the international and regional human rights treaties that also impose on States an obligation to “protect” or “ensure” human rights for persons within their territories or under their jurisdictions, the Court held that States are required: [T]o organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights (para. 166). Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgement of 29 July 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988). Note that the most relevant aspects of this judgement for the present study are also reflected in another case which was considered by the Court in 1989: Godínez Cruz Case, Judgement of 20 January 1989, Inter-American Court on Human Rights (Ser. C) No. 5 (1989). Both judgements are analysed in detail in Shelton, “Private violations, public wrongs and the responsibilities of States”. 120 121 78 Velásquez Rodríguez Case, para. 182. In addition to preventing the violation of protected rights, the State must also attempt to investigate and punish such violations, restore the right violated, and provide appropriate compensation for resulting damages (para. 177). These heads of responsibility would apply even where the State itself was not the immediate agent of harm. For example, a State could be legally responsible for its lack of due diligence in preventing or responding appropriately to a violation (para. 172). A State could also incur responsibility by failing to investigate private abuses of rights seriously, and thereby aiding in their commission (para. 166). The doctrine to emerge from the Velásquez Rodríguez Case with respect to State responsibility for the acts of private entities is usefully summarized in the following extract from the judgement: The State has [under article 1 of the American Convention] a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation (para. 174). The decision in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case does not diminish the general rule governing the non-attribution of private conduct. The Court explicitly affirmed that the State is responsible only for those human rights violations that can ultimately be attributed to an act or omission by a public authority under the rules of international law (para. 164). In cases where responsibility for the initial act does not fall on the State, responsibility can still be imputed because of a subsequent failure on the part of the State to exercise “due diligence” in preventing, responding to, or remedying abuses committed by private persons or entities (para. 172). Whether or not such imputation is possible depends on the relevant primary rules and the RECOMMENDED PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING