142. On May 20 or in June 1985 and on July 24 of that year, the disappearances of
Mr. Tassino Asteazu and Mr. González, respectively, were denounced (supra paras. 78
and 90). On October 15, 1986, family members of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms.
Raggio denounced the deaths of the three women (supra para. 61).
143. A short time later, on December 22, the Expiry Law was promulgated (supra
paras. 40 and 62). Despite the judicial remedies filed by the victims’ next of kin against
the constitutionality of the law, it was applied with respect to the actions related to this
case (supra paras. 62, 80 and 92) By communications of October 20 and December 21,
1988 and May 26, 1989, the judicial bodies hearing the cases were notified that the acts
denounced had been included within the terms of the Expiry Law (supra paras. 62, 81
and 93).
144. Between those actions and 2006, there is no report of any investigation that
would have determined individual responsibilities and the application of criminal
punishment. In 2006, the investigation was reopened into the deaths of the three women
and, despite some activity, the case was closed on February 16, 2007 in application of
the Expiry Law (supra para. 65). The investigation was recently reopened at the end of
October 2011 (supra para. 66).
145. The Expiry Law, therefore, had a direct impact on all the investigative activities
in this case, which was interrupted for several years.
146. It should be recalled that Article 2 of the Convention establishes the general
obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions of the
Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein, which means that the
measures of domestic law have to be effective (the effet utile principle).177 Thus, in
relation to forced disappearances, Article I(d) of the IACFDP obligates the States to take
“legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply” with
the commitments undertaken in that treaty, among them to “punish” those persons
responsible for the “crime of forced disappearance of persons” (Article I(b)).
147. The Court has held that “the failure to investigate the facts that constitute gross
human rights violations that occurred in the context of systematic patterns is especially
serious, because it may reveal a failure to comply with the State’s international
obligations established by non-derogable norms.”178 In its consistent case law, the Court
has repeatedly pointed out the incompatibility of amnesty laws and analogous norms
with the obligations of the States to investigate and, where appropriate, to punish those
responsible for serious human rights violations.179
Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and
Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 87 and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico,
para. 258.
177
Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of
August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267. Cf. Mutatis mutandi, Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and
Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paras. 96, 157 and 160 and Case of Gelman v.
Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 183.
178
Cf. Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment
of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 277. In that paragraph, the Court pointed out that “the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations organs and other universal and regional bodies
for the protection of human rights” had similarly ruled. In the following paragraph, the Court recalled that “it
had ruled on the incompatibility of amnesties with the American Convention in cases of serious violations of
human rights or crimes against humanity relating to Peru” (Barrios Altos and La Cantuta), Chile (Almonacid
179
40