9 result of the entry into force and application of the amnesty laws and that the Court recalled that in the context in which the events occurred, these laws “constituted a general obstacle to investigations of gross human rights violations,” as stated in previous cases. It also indicated that, in paragraph 221 of the judgment, the Court concluded 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. 28. In this regard, the State argued that, although this provision is not related to a specific measure of reparation, like the previous point on the lack of adequate definition of the crime of enforced disappearance, it is necessary to remember that the Inter-American Court has stated in repeated jurisprudence that “the contentious jurisdiction of the Court is not intended to review national legislation in the abstract, but must be exercised to hear specific cases where it is alleged that an act of the State, executed against individuals, violates the provisions of the Convention”. Therefore, it asked the Court to interpret this point of the judgment, by answering the following question: “[w]hen the Court uses the expression 'the assertion is correct,' is it indicating that in the specific case such norms did not generate violations of the American Convention? It added that, “if the answer is positive, the State requests that this be stated clearly and precisely by the […] Court.” 29. The representatives considered that the request for interpretation on the second issue should be declared inadmissible because “it was clearly defined in the judgment that the State was internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1), during the time period when the amnesty laws were applied, in the context of the facts of the Osorio Rivera case.” In this regard, they pointed out that, although the State raises the question whether the Court meant, with the expression “the assertion is correct” in paragraph 216 of the judgment, that such norms “did not generate violations of the Convention”, paragraph 217 of the judgment, also referenced by the State, “clearly” indicated that during the period in which the amnesty laws were applied the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic legislation to the Convention, according to article 2 of said treaty. 30. Therefore, they considered the third operative paragraph of the judgment to be relevant, since “it clearly flows that the breach of said obligation constituted an infringement of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera and his family members.” Likewise, they highlighted that in the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court ordered the State to “open and conduct the necessary investigations and proceedings, within a reasonable time,” a measure that includes an obligation to “abstain from using mechanisms to benefit the authors such as amnesty, […] to exempt responsibility, and to release itself from this obligation.” 31. Regarding this request, the Commission indicated that “the Court’s determination that the archiving of the investigation before the military jurisdiction was not due to the application of the amnesty laws, is not inconsistent with the conclusion that said norm constituted a general obstacle for the investigations of gross human rights violations.” In this regard, the Commission highlighted that, after the investigation was archived in the military jurisdiction in 1996, the investigations were reopened in the ordinary justice system in 2004. It considered that “[t]his omission, at least between 1996 and 2001, was due to the full effects that said laws had. Considerations of the Court 32. In section “B.5. The Amnesty Laws” of the judgment, the Court determined the following: 213. With regard to the general obligation of the States to adapt their domestic law to the Convention, contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, for the effects of this dispute, it should be recalled that the Court has already analyzed the content and scope of amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and No. 26,492 in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru and, in the judgment on merits in that case of March 14, 2001, it declared that they were incompatible with the American Convention and, consequently, they lacked legal effects. The Court interpreted that judgment on merits in the sense that “[t]he promulgation of a law that is manifestly contrary to the obligations assumed by a State Party to the Convention constitutes per se a violation of the