4 redefines legal relationships that have already been defined by standards or rules of a general nature. 14. There are situations in which strictly State duties, not subject to negotiation by the parties (although they may be facilitated by procedural arrangements), coexist with new duties undertaken by the State by arrangement with the victims. For example, the State has education- or health-related duties vis-à-vis all persons, including of course, the victims of human rights violations. These duties constitute the State’s minimum public obligations, are nonnegotiable and are to be discharged promptly in all cases. It may happen that in a specific case the decision is to grant the victims the very same entitlements that all citizens enjoy (educational or healthrelated, for example), but in a manner, under conditions or to a degree that is superior to the ordinary, compulsory entitlements. The immediate basis for this new factor, implying an advantage over the norm, would be the agreement between the parties. 15. One of the points addressed in the Agreement and in the Judgment on reparations in this case, and which has appeared in various judgments the Court has delivered in cases it has heard, is the exclusion of current and future taxes on the compensation being awarded. Although this was not done in the present case, this tax exclusion could be extended to include entitlements in cash or in kind. What matters is that the value of the entitlements as awarded by the Court should be preserved and that they should be exempt from any taxes that could have the effect of reducing the value of the respective compensation. But to preserve the value of the entitlements, it may not always be necessary to exclude them from the normal fiscal system. Such a solution could, in practice, be inequitable or a breach of the principle of equality before the law. The necessary result –the integrity of the compensation- can be achieved by means other than tax exemption and within the power of the State. 16. While it is true that the parties agreed that the State would institute the measures necessary to include the compensation in the General Budget of the Republic for fiscal year 2002, it is also true that satisfaction of the victims’ rights, as upheld by the Inter-American Court, cannot be left to the fate of the budget process. Hence, the Court confines itself to declaring the State’s obligation to make reparation; it is up to the State to determine how best to comply with that obligation within the timeframe set by the Court. 17. The Agreement stipulates that the State shall abide by the Court’s decision on the application filed by the Inter-American Commission seeking an interpretation by reason of the inefficacy of Laws No. 26479 and 26492, which again raises the problem of the “self-amnesty” laws vis-à-vis the State’s criminal justice duty. That problem has already prompted several different pronouncements by the Court (cf. García Ramírez, “Una controversia sobre la competencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos”, in Estudios jurídicos, cit., pp. 389 et seq.). In the present case, it is a matter of clarifying the scope of the findings against these laws. The Court has already ruled on this matter in its Judgment of September 3, 2001 (Barrios Altos Case. (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. vs. Peru). Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights) to the effect that “[g]iven the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 and 26492 constitute, the decision in the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case has generic effects” (operative paragraph 2). Furthermore, the consequences that this interpretation has