35 [A]mnesty has the effect of invalidating the criminal nature of the event; therefore, it is absolutely useless to complete an investigation in a case regarding an event that was proven to have occurred within the period covered by the amnesty law. In any event, it should be noted that the investigation stage in the instant case has been 80 fully completed. 82(21) On February 26, 1997, Mrs. Gómez-Olivares, through her representative, filed a motion for appeal against the final dismissal ordered in the case. The motion was founded, among other things, on the fact that the dismissal ordered does not “precisely guarantee social peace or the stability of the Rule of Law” and the “copious international legislation approved by Chile […] renders the enforcement of the amnesty law inadmissible.”81 The case file was forwarded to the Court-Martial, which on March 25, 1998, confirmed the judgment of the Second Military Court of Santiago (supra para. 82(20)). In the whereas clauses of the judgment, the Court-Martial resorted to the case law of the Supreme Court of Justice, as follows: amnesty [is] an objective ground for termination of criminal liability [and] it becomes effective ipso facto as from the date set in the law. Said effects cannot be challenged by its beneficiaries [...], since they relate to public law rules aimed at safeguarding the general interests of society. The foregoing means that, once the applicability of the amnesty law is verified, said applicability must be declared by the courts […]. That does not entail the application of the provisions of Section 413 [of the Code of Criminal Procedure], which provide that final dismissal of the case cannot be ordered unless the investigation aimed at verifying the corpus delicti and identifying the criminal has been 82 completed. The Court-Martial also found that: the occurrence of the illegal act (murder) [of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano] within the period covered by the amnesty law has been irrefutably verified; moreover, a writ of indictment has been issued against the alleged perpetrators. Therefore, the amnesty decree law is fully effective and, consequently, it should be applied by the courts and the proceedings should be definitely dismissed, since criminal liability has expired and, therefore, the 83 criminal proceedings are futile. As regards the enforcement of international agreements on human rights, the CourtMartial found that: this Court cannot uphold the idea that said international instruments have the effect of invalidating [Decree Law No. 2.191 … I]ndeed, the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, was ratified on August 21, 1990[,] while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was incorporated to the Chilean legislation on April 29, 1989. Therefore, it cannot be applied retroactively disregarding provisions on the non-retroactivity of criminal law, since that would amount to sustaining that amnesty has the effect of reinforcing criminal liability even after final expiration thereof. The foregoing considerations are inconsistent 80 Cf. Dismissal No. 28 ordered by the Second Military Court of Santiago on January 28, 1997, (record of appendixes to the State’s final written arguments, Appendix 1, folios 1936 to 1938 and 1974 to 1976). 81 Cf. Motion for appeal filed by the representative of Mrs. Gómez-Olivares on February 26, 1997, (record of appendixes to the State’s final written arguments, Appendix 1, folio 1949). 82 Cf. Judgment of the Court-Martial of March 25, 1998, whereas clause 5 (record of appendixes to the application, Appendix 3, folio 41). 83 Cf. Judgment of the Court-Martial of March 25, 1998, whereas clause 6 (record of appendixes to the application, Appendix 3, folio 42).