impunity.” In addition, it indicated that other obstacles de jure or de facto used by judicial or investigative authorities must be eliminated. 313. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to annul or revoke the Amnesty Law using the mechanisms established in its domestic laws, and that whatever the procedural route selected, it should be established that, given the incompatibility of the said law with the American Convention, “it lacks effects since its inception, and therefore cannot constitute an obstacle for the investigation, prosecution and punishment of this case, or of any other grave human rights violation committed during the Salvadoran armed conflict.” Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to conduct a serious and effective investigation into all the events denounced in this case, including the acts of torture and the extrajudicial executions perpetrated against the victims. In this regard, they considered it necessary that the Court order the State to annul the decision to dismiss the proceedings issued on September 1, 1993, and to order, immediately, the re-opening of the investigations, and that the latter should abide by the following: (a) take into account the pattern of human rights violations existing at the time; (b) determine the masterminds and perpetrators of the events, without the State being able to apply the Amnesty Law in favor of the perpetrators, or any other similar provision, prescription, non-retroactivity of the criminal law, res judicata, ne bis in idem or any other analogous mechanisms to waive responsibility, “and that the authorities abstain from taking measures that involve the obstruction of the investigative process,” and (c) ensure that: (i) the competent authorities conduct the corresponding investigations ex officio, and that, to this end, they have available and use all the necessary logistic and scientific resources, and that they have the authority to access the pertinent documentation and information; (ii) the persons who take part in the investigation have adequate guarantees for their safety, and (iii) the authorities refrain from taking measures that involve the obstruction of the investigative process. In this regard, they indicated that the victims’ next of kin must have full access and legal standing at the different procedural stages, and that the results of the investigations must be widely publicized so that Salvadoran society may know them. 314. The State recognized “its obligation to investigate the events denounced, to prosecute in a fair trial and, as appropriate, to punish those responsible for the events described in the application [sic] when they have been individualized and their criminal or administrative responsibility determined by the competent authorities,” as well as “its obligation to adapt its domestic law in conformity with the provisions of Article 2, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.” 315. In Chapter VIII of this Judgment, the Court declared the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, as well as the failure to comply with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, because it had not opened an investigation ex officio, because of the lack of diligence in the criminal investigation conducted by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera, and because of decision to dismiss the proceedings in application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of the Peace, as well as because of the violation of the guarantee of a reasonable term. Thus, the said investigation has not constituted an effective remedy to ensure the rights of access to justice and to know the truth by the investigation, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible for the massacres, in a way that examines, completely and exhaustively, the numerous adverse effects caused to the victims in this case, or to ensure the full reparation of the consequences of the violations. Accordingly, 32 years after the events, and 19 years after the decision was issued to dismiss the only proceedings that had been opened for the facts of this case, without any of those responsible having been identified or indicted during the investigation, total impunity prevails. 316. The Court assesses positively the work of the Truth Commission for El Salvador and the publication of its report, as an effort that has contributed to the search for and determination of the truth of a historic period in El Salvador. In addition, the Truth Commission underlined the importance of holding judicial proceedings to prosecute and punish those responsible, so that the Court considers it pertinent to reiterate that the “historic truth” contained in the said report 103