40 the facts and ascertain the identity of those responsible for the inhumane, degrading and humiliating treatment suffered by the victim. 167. The State argued that Decree-Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492, ordered as part of the pacification process, granted a general amnesty to military, police and civilian personnel; hence, the request made by the victim and the Commission is inadmissible. According to the State, even if the individuals who detained and prosecuted the victim had incurred some administrative, civil or criminal responsibility, those Decree-Laws precluded their prosecution at the present time, either judicially or administratively. 168. Under the American Convention, every person subject to the jurisdiction of a State Party is guaranteed the right to recourse to a competent court for the protection of his fundamental rights. States, therefore, have the obligation to prevent human rights violations, investigate them, identify and punish their intellectual authors and accessories after the fact, and may not invoke existing provisions of domestic law, such as the Amnesty Law in this case, to avoid complying with their obligations under international law. In the Court’s judgment, the Amnesty Law enacted by Peru precludes the obligation to investigate and prevents access to justice. For these reasons, Peru’s argument that it cannot comply with the duty to investigate the facts that gave rise to the present Case must be rejected. 169. As this Court has held on repeated occasion, Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. As this Court has ruled, Article 25 “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention” (Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paras. 82 and 83; Suárez Rosero Case, supra 162, para. 65; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 57, para. 164). That article is closely linked to Article 8(1), which provides that every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, for the determination of his rights, whatever their nature. 170. Consequently, it is the duty of the State to investigate human rights violations, prosecute those responsible and avoid impunity. The Court has defined impunity as the failure to investigate, prosecute, take into custody, try and convict those responsible for violations of rights protected by the American Convention and has further stated that …the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenseless of victims and their relatives (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 57, para. 173). 171. The State has an obligation to investigate the facts in the instant Case, to identify those responsible, to punish them, and to adopt the internal legal measures necessary to ensure compliance with this obligation (Article 2 of the American Convention). XV