10 latter and gives rise to the international responsibility of the State [and] that, given the nature of the violation constituted by amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and No. 26,492, the decisions in the judgment on merits in the Barrios Altos case have general effects.” In the judgment on reparations in the case of Barrios Altos, of November 30, 2001, the Court ordered the State to apply the decision of the Court in the judgment on interpretation of the judgment on merits “with regard to the meaning and scope of the declaration of the ineffectiveness of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492”; in other words, to accord general effects to the decisions in the judgment on merits. 214. The incompatibility ab initio of the amnesty laws with the Convention has been accepted in general in Peru since the Court declared this in the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos; that is, since March 14, 2001. In addition, in some cases the State has eliminated the effects that these laws might have had at one time. 215. In the Order on monitoring compliance with judgment of September 22, 2005, this Court declared that, pursuant to the ninth considering paragraph of this order, the State had complied fully with “the application of the decisions taken by the Court in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on merits in this case of September 2, 2001, in relation to the meaning and scope of the declaration of the ineffectiveness of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 (operative paragraph 5(a)) of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001.” To this end, it took into account that, on April 8, 2005, the judgment of March 14, 2001, had been published in the official gazette “El Peruano,” and also the decision of the Prosecutor General of April 18, 2005. 216. Bearing in mind the above and based on the period of time over which the said laws were applied, it can be inferred that, of the investigations analyzed, the only one on which the said laws could have had an impact would be the one conducted by the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima in which the archiving of the case was decided on February 7, 1996 (supra para. 89). The case was archived on October 15, 1996, with the favorable opinion of the Judge-Advocate of the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone (supra para. 89). In this regard, both the representatives and the Commission stated that the archiving of the proceedings before the military jurisdiction was not a result of the entry into force and application of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492. This assertion is correct. 217. Despite the foregoing, it should be recalled that, in the context in which the facts occurred, those laws constituted a general obstacle to the investigations of gross human rights violations in Peru. Thus, this Court has already declared in the cases of La Cantuta v. Peru and Anzualdo Castro v. Peru that, during the period in which the amnesty laws were applied, the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law to the Convention contained in Article 2 of this instrument, so that, since they were ab initio and in general incompatible with the Convention, the said “laws” could not generate effects, do not have any effect currently, and cannot have effects in the future. 33. Likewise, in the conclusions, the Court stated: 221. Lastly, with regard to the existing normative framework, the Court concludes that during the period in which the amnesty laws were applied, the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law to the Convention […]. 34. From the judgment itself it can be deduced that the phrase “the assertion is correct” in paragraph 216 refers to the immediately preceding sentence, meaning that the archiving of the proceedings before the military jurisdiction was not a consequence of the entry into force and application of Laws No. 26479 and 26492. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in paragraph 217 the Court determined that this norm constituted a general obstacle to investigations of gross human rights violations in Peru during the period in which they were applied. Therefore, as established in the judgment itself, in this case the Court declared a breach of Article 2 of the Convention for a limited period of time, without ordering any corresponding measure of reparation, due to what had already been determined in the Order to monitor compliance with the judgment of September 22, 2005, issued in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. 35. Therefore, the Court considers that the request for interpretation on this point is inadmissible since, under the guise of a request for interpretation, what is being presented is a discrepancy with what was decided by the Court and an assessment of issues that have already been raised in their procedural opportunity and on which this Court has already made a decision. In addition to the foregoing, the Court notes that, as recognized by the State itself, the issue that it requested be