81 228. Under the general obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, the States Parties have the obligation to take measures of all kinds to assure that no one is taken from the judicial protection and the exercise of their right to a simple and effective remedy, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and once the American Convention has been ratified, it corresponds to the State to adopt all the measures to revoke the legal provisions that may contradict said treaty as established in Article 2 thereof, such as those that prevent the investigation of serious human rights violations given that it leads to the defenselessness of victims and the perpetuation of impunity and prevents the next of kin from knowing the truth regarding the facts. 229. The incompatibility with the Convention includes amnesties of serious human rights violations and is not limited to those which are denominated, “self-amnesties,” and the Court, more than the adoption process and the authority which issued the Amnesty Law, heads to its ratio legis: to leave unpunished serious violations committed in international law. 289 The incompatibility of the amnesty laws with the American Convention in cases of serious violations of human rights does not stem from a formal question, such as its origin, but rather from the material aspect in what regards the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. G. The investigation of the facts and the Uruguayan Expiry Law. 230. The way in which, at least for a period of time, the Expiry Law adopted in Uruguay has been interpreted and applied, on the one hand, has affected the State’s international obligation to investigate and punish human rights violations relating to the enforced disappearance of María Claudia García Iruretagoyena and of María Macarena Gelman García, as well as the situation regarding the latter in relation to her abduction and the concealment of her identity, due to the prevention of the victim’s next of kin from being heard by a judge, pursuant to that stated in Article 8(1) of the American Convention and has, on the other hand, violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of that instrument because of the failure to investigate, persecute, capture, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the facts, thereby also failing to comply with Article 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, referring to the adaption of domestic law to the Convention. 290 231. The failure to investigate the serious human rights violations committed in the present case, which occurred in the context of systematic patterns, evince the noncompliance with international obligations of the State, established by nonextendible norms. 291 232. Given its express incompatibility with the American Convention, the provisions of the Expiry Law that impede the investigation and punishment of serious                                                          289 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 120, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 175. 290 291 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 175. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, paras. 93 and 128; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 61 and 197, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 137.