16 amnesty provisions, prescription period provisions, and the creation of measures designed to eliminate responsibility so as to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for extreme violations of human rights such as torture, summary, extralegal, or arbitrary executions, and forced disappearances, all of them prohibited since they violate non-revocable rights acknowledged by International Human Rights Law, are inadmissible.27 Basically, the Judgments and Orders issued by the Court in the present case were enough to restart or impel all types of criminal proceedings related with the investigation of the facts, through the necessary domestic legislation measures –including judicial orders– to overcome any obstacle that impedes the investigation or prevents it from being adequate or effective. Therefore, based on the obligation to investigate derived from the Judgments issued by the Court, the dismissal that occurred prior to the Judgments and Orders issued by the Court, which are the source which allow the Judiciary to appropriately “control conventionality between the domestic legal regulations that apply in the specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights” cannot have any effect. The Tribunal has clearly stated that, “in this task, the Judiciary must take into consideration not only the treaty, but also the Inter-American Court’s —the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention— interpretation of the treaty.”28 33. 2.2. From the constant jurisprudence of the Court and from the application of international law in the domestic legislation, it can be inferred that it was not necessary for the Court to issue a specific order to annul the dismissal that occurred in 1999 The Court considers that not only its constant jurisprudence, but also different practices in the region, related with the judicial implementation of its orders, make it possible to infer that specific broken down orders are not necessary for the domestic authorities to 34. 27 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause forty-seven, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering Clause twenty-six. 28 Cf. Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause sixty-three; Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008, Considering Clause sixty-three, and Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause thirty-five.