25 a) It concurs with the arguments of the victim’s representatives with regard to the two heads of damages indicated below: a.i) “moral reparations, or public apologies, and reinstatement of the good name” of the victim and his next of kin; and a.ii) effective prosecution and punishment, both within government and through the courts, of the material and intellectual authors and accessories after the fact. To that end, the Court should require that the State remove any legal or other obstacles that may stand in the way. b) The Commission endorses the arguments made by the victim’s representatives to the effect that the State has an obligation to adopt the measures necessary to prevent these violations from recurring in the future, and c) In the case of the anti-terrorism laws, the Court should follow the precedent it established in the Barrios Altos Case concerning amnesty laws, since the State must adapt its domestic laws to the Convention, to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 2 and 63(1) thereof. The State’s arguments51 67. At the public hearing on reparations, the State articulated its position on this matter: a) It is completely dedicated to respecting, observing and executing the Court’s decisions, fully recognizes the legal authority of the Court’s August 18, 2000 judgment on the merits and the Judgment on reparations in the present case, and will execute both judgments to the fullest; b) It shares the position taken by the victim’s representatives to the effect that the pecuniary reparation is but one aspect that must be considered for full reparation. The State has undertaken a commitment to take action on the following essential matters: economic reparations, the quest for justice, restoring the victim’s good name, as well as educational and health services for victims, and strengthening and promoting the inter-American system of human rights; and c) The State is concerned by a number of amnesty-related provisions, particularly Laws 26,479 and 26,492, which curtail due process of law and effective court protection, and could be an impediment to full execution of the Court’s finding ordering investigation and punishment of the responsible parties. The State also referenced the “Report prepared by the Committee to Study and Review Legislation Enacted since April 5, 1992,” which specifically examines Decree Laws 25,475 and 25,659 and points out that these laws could adversely affect substantive rights, especially those recognized in human rights conventions and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court. The Court’s comments 51 See paragraph 45 of the present Judgment.