In Velasquez Rodriguez V. Honduras, Series C, No. 4, para. 170 (1988), the Inter-American Court noted that “An illegal act which violates human rights and is initially not directly imputed to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention.” In Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, judgment of 27th November 2003, para 41, during the public hearing, the State asserted that there was no direct evidence to show that agents of the State were responsible for the violations committed against the victim. In this respect, the Court considers it appropriate to indicate that, in order to establish that there has been a violation of the rights embodied in the Convention, it is not necessary to determine, as it is under domestic criminal law, the guilt of the authors or their intention, nor is it necessary to identify individually the agents who are attributed with the violations. However, the Application is devoid of any known link between selfdetermination and violation of rights in view of the foregoing. Where the crux of the main claim is boundary dispute, merely claiming self-determination cannot bring the matter within the human rights mandate of the Court. 25