75 amnesties or pardons in this regard. 260 In other cases, it highlighted that when an agent of the State is accused of crimes violating the rights of Article 3 in the European Convention (Right to life), the criminal proceedings and judgment should not be obstructed, and the granting of amnesty is not permitted. 261 214. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights considered that amnesty laws cannot protect the State that adopts them from complying with their international obligations, 262 and noted, in addition, that in prohibiting the prosecution of perpetrators of serious human rights violations via the granting of amnesty, the States not only promote impunity, but also close off the possibility that said abuses be investigated and that the victims of said crimes have an effective remedy in order to obtain reparation. 263 E. Amnesty laws and Domestic Jurisprudence in tribunals of States Parties to the Convention. 215. Likewise, various member States of the Organization of American States, by way of their highest tribunals of justice, have applied the mentioned standards, and therefore, have complied in good faith with the international obligations assumed by their respective States. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina ruled in the Case Simón, to revoke the amnesty laws that in said country constituted a legislative obstacle for the investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment of facts that entailed human rights violations: [T]o the extent that, [the amnesties], tend to "neglect" gross human rights violations, they are contrary to the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and are, therefore constitutionally intolerable. [T]he translation of the findings of the Inter-American Court in "Barrios Altos" to the Argentine case is imperative, if the decisions of the mentioned International Tribunal are to be interpreted in good faith as jurisprudential guidelines. Certainly, it is possible to find various arguments that distinguish [the Argentine case from the case of Barrios Altos], but such distinctions would be purely anecdotal. [T]o the extent that [the amnesties laws] hinder the investigation and effective punishment of acts contrary to the rights recognized in these treaties, prevent the fulfillment of the duty to guarantee that the State of Argentina has committed to, and are inadmissible. Similarly, any regulation of domestic law which, invoking reasons for "pacification" provides for the grant of any form of amnesty to allow impunity for serious human rights violations perpetrated by the regime that the provision                                                          260 Cf. T.E.D.H., Case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, Judgment of 2 November 2004, Application No. 32446/96, para. 55. 261 Cf. T.E.D.H. Case of Yeter v. Turkey, Judgment of 13 January 2009, Application No. 33750/03, para. 70. 262 Cf. A.C.H.P.R., Case of Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, Communication Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97-196/97 and 210/98, Decision of 11 May 2000, para. 83. 263 Cf. A.C.H.P.R., Case of Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 245/02, Decision of 21 May 2006, paras. 211 and 215.