State responsibility State is not exempted from its own responsibility for internationally wrongful conduct by the prosecution and punishment of the State officials who carried it out.840 Nor may those officials hide behind the State in respect of their own responsibility for conduct of theirs which is contrary to rules of international law which are applicable to them. The former principle is reflected, for example, in article 25, paragraph 4, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which provides that: “[n]o provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.” The latter is reflected, for example, in the well-established principle that official position does not excuse a person from individual criminal responsibility under international law.841 (4) Article 58 reflects this situation, making it clear that the articles do not address the question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State. The term “individual responsibility” has acquired an accepted meaning in the light of the Rome Statute and other instruments; it refers to the responsibility of individual persons, including State officials, under certain rules of international law for conduct such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 840 Prosecution and punishment of responsible State officials may be relevant to reparation, especially satisfaction: see paragraph (5) of the commentary to article 36. 841 See, e.g., the Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, Principle III (footnote 836 above), p. 375; and article 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 143 Article 59. Charter of the United Nations These articles are without prejudice to the Charter of the United Nations. Commentary (1) In accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, “[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”. The focus of Article 103 is on treaty obligations inconsistent with obligations arising under the Charter. But such conflicts can have an incidence on issues dealt with in the articles, as for example in the Lockerbie cases.842 More generally, the competent organs of the United Nations have often recommended or required that compensation be paid following conduct by a State characterized as a breach of its international obligations, and article 103 may have a role to play in such cases. (2) Article 59 accordingly provides that the articles cannot affect and are without prejudice to the Charter of the United Nations. The articles are in all respects to be interpreted in conformity with the Charter. 842 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 3; (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), ibid., p. 114.