Julien Grisonas family,” which are not eligible to benefit from amnesty. It pointed out that pursuant to inter-American case law, while these laws were in force and being applied, the State was violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as Article I, paragraph (b), of the ICFDP. 150. The representative noted that these laws constituted a “legal wall of impunity that block[ed] accusations and criminal actions.” Such impediments “forced those who wanted to know the [truth] to undertake extensive civil actions with an obvious and substantial reduction in investigative powers and an evidentiary framework that was more restrictive.” 151. The State argued that the laws were declared “permanently null and void” by the National Congress in 2003 and “without effect” by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in 2005, thereby “invalidating the impunity laws and decrees and all their effects.” It added that in the cases brought with regard to the facts committed to the detriment of the Julien Grisonas family, “energetic enforcement of the Convention" was applied in the form of the rejection of attempts to apply amnesties and pardons. A.2. Regarding the investigations aimed at clarifying what happened and punishing those responsible and guaranteeing a reasonable time 152. The Commission noted that in 2017, two former police officers were convicted of the unlawful deprivation of liberty of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite. Although the ruling considered it proven that Julien Cáceres was murdered, the defendants were acquitted of the crime. In the appeals phase, the decision was partially overturned. Because "no ruling has been delivered,” the "facts remain in impunity," and consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2, and Article I(b), of the ICFDP. Regarding the acts committed against Anatole and Victoria, it argued that after the case was brought before this Court, four people were convicted, which "constitutes a fundamental step toward obtaining justice for the victims." 153. It added that, notwithstanding the complexity of the process, “45 years after the events […] and 18 years since the legal obstacles were lifted,” those responsible for the disappearance of Julien Cáceres have still not been punished, nor have his fate and whereabouts been determined, and the same is true for Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite. 183 154. The representative indicated that the establishment of responsibilities for "the homicide" of Julien Cáceres is pending, as well as "the handling [...] of what was known as 'spoils of war.'" It indicated that neglect of the duty to investigate constitute violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 155. The State argued that although those accused of the murder of Julien Cáceres were acquitted, the decision was overruled. It pointed out that, the end result aside, the investigation made it possible "to reconstruct the circumstances" of what happened. It indicated that the State cannot be found responsible for “failing to charge and prosecute” persons “who are not subject to its jurisdiction,” whose extradition was deferred. It argued that there is no “situation of impunity” regarding the facts. 156. It indicated that the cases filed constitute "mega-trials" involving prosecution of serious and systematic human rights violations. It argued that the expert witnesses Méndez and Parenti referred to the strategy of moving cases forward “by sections,” which “is in keeping with the prioritization standards […] established under international law,” such that “it is hard In its final written arguments, the Commission asked that the State be declared internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 3, 4(1), 5, 7(1), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, as well as Articles I, paragraphs (a) and (b), and III of the ICFDP. 183 42