reparation due to the victims and their families.” Thus, according to the agreement reached by the parties, the route proposed by the Truth Commission, whose recommendations the parties had undertaken to comply with, was that of justice and reparation with regard to the cases it handled. This was consistent with the spirit and letter of what the parties had negotiated and specified in the Peace Accord. Nevertheless, within days of the publication of the Truth Commission’s report, the General Amnesty Law was enacted with a very different purpose. 16. A context such as the one outlined here – and that is described in more detail in the judgment – is different from the one that preceded the other amnesty laws to which the Court’s case law has referred. Thus, as previously indicated, the Court’s analysis and reasoning has characteristics that led it to incorporate elements of international humanitarian law elements to produce an interpretation that harmonized with the obligations established in the American Convention, in order to make a juridical assessment of amnesty in a context such as this one. 17. There is no norm in positive international law that has explicitly prescribed any kind of amnesty. The only explicit mention of amnesty in a multilateral treaty is contained in article 6(5) of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. 14 In the commentaries to that article, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) indicated that its purpose “[…] is to encourage a gesture of reconciliation that will help restore the normal course of life in a people that has been divided.”15 According to the Proceedings of the Diplomatic Conference in which Additional Protocol II was adopted in 1977,16 the meaning of that norm was to grant immunity to those detained or punished for involvement in the armed conflict. 18. Pursuant to the foregoing, in this judgment, the Court has indicated that, even though amnesties may be permitted as a component of the ending of a non-international armed conflict, they have a limit which is in relation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, so that these crimes cannot remain unpunished or be forgotten (see paragraphs 285 and 286 of the judgment). These limits are also found in what some call “sources implicitly related to amnesty.”17 19. Moreover, within the United Nations it has been stated "that peace agreements approved by the United Nations can never promise amnesties for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or gross violations of human rights."18 For its part, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, although applicable only to crimes falling within its competence and jurisdiction, entails the obligation of the States parties to hold 14 Article 6(5) of Protocol II, establishes that “at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained.” 15 ICRC. Comments to the Protocol of June 8, 1997, additional to the Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflict. Colombia. 1998. Page 168. 16 Proceedings of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974-1977). Volume 9. Geneva, Switzerland. 17 Freeman, Mark. Necessary Evils. Amnesties and the Search for Justice. Cambridge University Press. 2009. Page 36. It underscores Article I of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, certain regulations contained in the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I on international conflicts, Article 7 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (1984); Article 6 of the Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 1985; Article IV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,1994, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, 2006. 18 Report of the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in societies experiencing or emerging from conflict. U.N. Doc S/2004/616. 3 August 2004. para. 10. 4