66 2011 Quebec Journal of International Law (Special Edition) to bring the perpetrators of violations, who are often identified in the Court''s rulings, to trial. Moreover, the Court analyses the factual details of violations by making generous use of witness testimonies and expert opinions, similar to a fourth instance appeal. The detailed descriptions of violations, usually related to atrocious, violent crimes carried out in a context of terror, go in line with the “ criminalization” pattern. Inquisitorial examination, inspired from criminal law, drives the fact-finding procedure. The “ criminalization” of Inter-American human rights law reduces the artificial barrier which separates international criminal law from international human rights law, the first of which involves the judgment of individuals, and the second of which involves the judgment of States. 29 However, despite this apparent unity and the convergence of the protection mechanisms for the human being, the Court must settle with judging States (and has no power to judge individuals) and return verdicts on their international responsibility for the violation of the Convention. It is at this stage that the criminalization of Inter-American law must be analysed, for it results, in particular, from the incorporation of criminal legal concepts into the Inter-American law, changing the traditional conception of international law and responsibility. References to international criminal law appeared in the Inter-American Court’s very first judgment, which described forced disappearances as crimes against humanity. 30

Later, the Court increasingly avoided the neutral language of classic international responsibility concepts in order to refer, in some cases, to concepts such as State crimes or State terrorism. Since the Court has no jurisdiction to judge individuals for their crimes, it integrates a criminal procedural tone and criminal legal language in its litigation, thus criminalizing the State’s conduct. The State is not only responsible for the violation of an international obligation, but is also guilty of crimes against humanity and of terrorist acts. This pattern is illustrated, for example, in the Goiburú et al. Case, whose background was the forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions of Operation Condor carried out by a number of Latin American States in the 1970s. The Court referred to several documents to make its case, in particular the International Criminal Court’s Statute, and concluded that the violation of a number of American Convention articles had taken place. However, according to the Court, the inter-state organization of a policy of systematic and grave human rights violations amounts to what the Court described as State terrorism, which justifies why the State is held to have “ aggravated” or “ exacerbated” responsibility. 31 The concept of “ aggravated” responsibility is not new and the Court has referred to it in a number of cases32 in which the State was held to have directly committed grave

Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 1998, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ III. 43/ doc. 11 (1999) 16 [ White Van Case].

29On the convergence of human rights protection systems, see A. A. Cançado Trindade, International Law For Humankind : Towards a New Jus Gentium, vol. II (Leiden : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) at 150.

30Velásquez-Rodríguez Case, supra note 27 at para. 155, 158.

31Goiburú et al. Case (Paraguay) (2006), Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (Ser. C) No. 153, at para. 153, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 2006, at 30 online : Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. < http :// www. corteidh. or. cr/ docs/ informes/ 20063. pdf> [ Goiburú et al. Case or Goiburú].

32On this issue, see Plan de Sánchez Massacre Case (Guatemala) (2004), Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (Ser. C) No. 105, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 2004,