this regard before the international courts.447 This request was answered on April 16, 2007.448 On August 13, 2007, Tutela Legal del Arzobispado reiterated its request to re-open the proceedings, without obtaining a response from the authority, 449 it advised that, in its most recent briefs, neither the investigations nor the specific measures requested to clarify the truth had been undertaken. 280. On February 4, 2009, the Second Court issued a decision “deciding, in part, the complaint of [November 23, 2006],” in which it declared inadmissible the request regarding the notification of the judgment that applied the Amnesty Law. 450 On February 9, 2009, Tutela Legal del Arzobispado presented a request to annul the decision of February 4, 2009.451 Since then, no other relevant measure has been taken in the proceedings. 2) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 281. Regarding the decision to dismiss the proceedings of September 27, 1993, issued by the Second Court, the Commission considered that the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace and its application in this case were incompatible with the international obligations of the State of El Salvador under the American Convention. In this regard, it maintained that the facts of the case were characterized by extreme gravity and constituted crimes against humanity, the impunity of which was explicitly contrary the Convention. Thus, it concluded emphatically that the Amnesty Law lacked judicial effects and could not continue to be an obstacle for the investigation of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, or for the identification and punishment of those responsible. Regarding the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 2, 2000, the Commission considered that, even though it had opened up a possibility, at the discretion of each judge, to continue the investigations in certain cases, such as this one, in which the Amnesty Law had been applied, this decision did not rectify the grave effects that the law had had and would continue to have on the expectations of truth, justice and reparation of the victims’ next of kin and of Salvadoran society. In addition, it considered that the text of this law, by permitting the inclusion of grave human rights violations, was per se incompatible with the American Convention and, therefore, the law must be derogated or its effects eliminated. Similarly, the Commission stated that judges, prosecutors and other authorities were abiding by the general understanding that the Amnesty Law excluded the possibility of establishing the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of human rights violations during the armed conflict. Therefore, the Commission concluded that, both the validity and the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace in the instant case constituted a violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1), in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin. 282. The representatives argued that the Salvadoran State was responsible for not investigating the facts of the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places seriously and effectively owing to the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace. In addition, the representatives indicated that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador itself had established, since 2001, that the said law was not applicable to grave human rights violations. However, even though it was evident to the representatives that the instant case referred to grave human rights violations, the Office of the Prosecutor General 447 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on November 30, 2006 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.2 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7001 to 7002). 448 Cf. Brief of the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador of April 16, 2007 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.3 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7004 to 7008). 449 Cf. Request to re-open the proceedings filed by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado on August 13, 2007 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.4 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7010 to 7011). 450 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on February 4, 2009 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.5 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7013 to 7018). 451 Cf. Request for annulment of the decision filed by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado on February 9, 2009 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.6 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 7020 to 7024). 92