73 207. It also made reference to the Uruguayan Expiry Law, during its final comments made in 1993250 and 1998.251 In these comments, the Committee noted that the Expiry Law violated Articles 2-3 (right to an effective remedy to all of the victims of human rights violations), Article 7 (cruel treatment of the victim’s next of kin) and Article 16 (right to juridical personality) of the Covenant. It also recommended that the State of Uruguay take the legislative measures necessary to correct the effects of the Expiry law and to assure that the victims of said violations have access to useful and effective remedies in the domestic courts. 208. The Committee against Torture also expressed that the amnesties that prevent the investigation of acts of torture, as well as the judgment and possible punishment of those responsible, are in violation of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment. 252 209. Also in the universal forum, in another branch of international law –that isinternational criminal law, amnesties or similar norms have been considered inadmissible. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in a case related to torture, considered that it would not make sense to sustain on the one hand the statute of limitations on the serious human rights violations, and on the other hand to authorize State measures that authorize or condone, or amnesty laws that absolve its perpetrators.253 Similarly, the Special Court for Sierra Leone considered that the amnesty laws of said country were not applicable to serious international crimes. 254 This universal tendency has been consolidated through the incorporation of the mentioned standard in the development of the statutes of the special tribunals recently created within the United Nations. In this sense, both the United Nations Agreement with the Republic of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Cambodia, as well as the Statutes that create the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the                                                          250 Final Comments of the Human CCPR/C/79/Add.19, May 5, 1993, para. 7. Rights Committee: Republic of Uruguay, UN Doc. 251 Final Comments of the Human Rights Committee: Republic of Uruguay, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.90, 8 abril de 1998, Section C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations: The Committee expresses once again its deep concern about the Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado (Expiry Law of the Punitive Powers of the State ) and its profound anxiety about the implications of the Law with regard to compliance with the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes the obligation of States parties, under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, to ensure that all persons whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective remedy through remedy to the competent judicial, administrative, legislative or other authority. The Committee notes with deep concern that in a number of cases the maintenance of the Expiry Law effectively excludes the possibility of investigation into past human rights abuses and thereby prevents the State party from discharging its responsibility to provide effective remedies to the victims of those abuses. The Committee also considers that the Expiry Law violates article 16 of the Covenant in respect of the disappeared persons and article 7 in respect of their family members.” 252 Cf. C.A.T., General Comment 2: Application of Article 2 for the State Parties. U.N. Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, of January 24, 2008, para. 5, and C.A.T., Final Comments regarding the examination of the reports presented by States Parties in conformity with Article 19 of the Convention on: Benin, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/BEN/CO/2, on February 19, 2008, para. 9, and Former Republic of Yugoslava of Macedonia, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/MKD/CO/2, of May 21, 2008, para. 5. 253 Cf. I.C.T.Y., Case of Prosecutor v. Furundžija. Judgment of 10 December, 1998. Case No. IT-9517/1-T, para. 155. 254 Cf. S.C.S.L., Case of Prosecutor v. Gbao, Decision No. SCSL-04-15-PT-141, Appeals Chamber, Decision on Preliminary Motion on the Invalidity of the Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special Court, 25 May 2004, para. 10; S.C.S.L., Case of Prosecutor v. Sesay, Callon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, Judgment of the Trial Chamber, 2 March 2009, para. 54, and S.C.S.L, Case of Prosecutor v. Sesay, Callon and Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15T, Trial Chamber, Sentencing Judgment, 8 April 2009, para. 253.