on society demands, with the utmost urgency, that the public know the truth, regardless of the sector to which he or she belongs.”468 290. Similarly, the Truth Commission, created by the Mexico Accords of April 27, 1991, and which initiated its activities on July 13, 1992, investigated “grave acts of violence that had occurred since 1980, whose impact on society demands, with the utmost urgency, that the public know the truth,” which included the Massacres of El Mozote, as an exemplary case of the peasant massacres perpetrated by the Armed Forces.469 In its report published on March 15, 1993, the Truth Commission issued a series of recommendations, among which it included a section on the “measures to promote national reconciliation.” In this section, it indicated, inter alia: Nevertheless, in order to achieve the goal of pardon, we must pause and weigh certain consequences that can be inferred from knowledge of the truth about the serious acts described in this report. One such consequence, perhaps the most difficult to address in the country's current situation, is that of fulfilling the twofold requirements of justice: punishing the guilty and adequately compensating the victims and their families.470 291. However, on March 20, 1993, five days after the presentation of the Report of the Truth Commission, the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of El Salvador enacted the “Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace,” which extended the benefit of amnesty to the persons referred to in Article 6 of the National Reconciliation Law; namely, “those persons who, according to the Truth Commission, participated in grave human rights violations that have occurred since January 1, 1980.”471 In other words, a general and absolute amnesty was granted which extended the possibility of impeding the criminal investigation and the determination of responsibilities to those individuals who had taken part as perpetrators, masterminds and accomplices in the perpetration of serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law during the internal armed conflict, including those exemplary cases established by the Truth Commission. In short, it set aside the non-applicability of the amnesty in these situations that had been agreed by the parties to the Peace Accords and established in the National Reconciliation Law. In addition, beneficiaries of the amnesty included not only individuals whose cases were pending, but also those who had not yet been prosecuted or regarding whom a guilty verdict had already been delivered, and in all cases, civil responsibility was extinguished. 292. Consequently, it is evident that the ratio legis of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace was to render ineffectual Chapter I (“Armed Forces”), section 5 (“End to impunity”), of the Peace Accord of January 16, 1992, and, in this way, amnesty and leave in impunity all the grave crimes perpetrated against international law during the internal armed conflict, even though the Truth Commission had determined that they should be investigated and punished. Thus, the enactment of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace explicitly contradicted what the parties to the armed conflict themselves had established in the Peace Accord that determined the end of the hostilities.472 468 National Reconciliation Law, Legislative Decree No. 147, published on January 23, 1992 (evidence file, tome II, annex 5 to the submission of the case, folio 1408). 469 Cf. Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 1992-1993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folios 1081, 1087, 1195 and 1278). 470 Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 19921993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folio 1274). 471 Article 1 of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, Legislative Decree No. 486, published on March 22, 1993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 6 to the submission of the case, folio 1414). 472 In this regard, expert witness Menéndez Leal explained that, “the justification for this benefit is clearly aligned with the considerations of its precedent, the 1992 amnesty, which granted more limited or restricted benefits; nevertheless, an amnesty was enacted that has the characteristics of being, on the one hand, extensive, absolute and unconditional, and also the speed with which it was approved was noticeable, to the point that it was considered to be one of the most serious violations in the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report [of the Truth Commission] and in the 1992 relaunching agreements and understandings, and insofar as it has prevented the legal investigation, prosecution and punishment of the masterminds and perpetrators of gross human rights violations that 96