48 108. The Commission abstained from formulating arguments and allegations with regard to Article 2 of the Convention, although it had mentioned this violation in its application; its arguments were limited to Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Court will restrict itself to examining Peru’s alleged failure to comply with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 109. Based on Article 1(1) of the American Convention, this Court has already established that the State is obliged to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in it64 and to organize the public authorities in order to guarantee to everyone subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights65. According to the rules of State international responsibility applicable to international human rights law, the act or omission of any public authority, whatsoever its rank, is an act which may be attributed to the State, and engages its responsibility in the terms established in the American Convention itself66. 110. The Court observes that, in accordance with the facts established in this judgment, the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention with regard to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano, so we may conclude that it has failed to comply with its general obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to guarantee their free and full exercise, as established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 111. In order to establish whether the State’s conduct in this case was adapted to the American Convention, this Court considers that it is appropriate to recall that the preamble to the Convention reaffirms the intention of the American States to “consolidate in [the] hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights [and obligations] of man.” This requirement is adapted to the norm of interpretation embodied in Article 29(c) of the Convention. The facts of the instant case diverge from these requirements of the Convention. 112. As we have shown, the Constitutional Court was dismantled and disqualified from exercising its jurisdiction appropriately, particularly with regard to controlling constitutionality, since article 4 of that Court’s statute requires the vote in favor of six of the seven member justices in order to declare that a law is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court is one of the democratic institutions that guarantee the rule of law. The dismissal of the justices and the omission by Congress to appoint substitutes, violated erga omnes the possibility of exercising the control of constitutionality and the consequent examination of whether the State’s conduct was in harmony with the Constitution. 113. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the State has failed to comply with the general obligation in Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 64 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 210. 65 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 210. 66 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 210.