14 Guatemala applied a policy of genocide against the Maya Achí people of Rabinal that there is an aggravated international responsibility for the State that must be taken into account when establishing reparations, because the “prohibition of genocide must be an extension of the right to life […].” B.2.2. Considerations of the Court 35. This Court has already made clear that within the scope of its jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon it to evaluate the actions or omissions of State agents in the cases before it and to classify these in accordance with the American Convention and other inter-American treaties that grant it jurisdiction. For this exercise, it may also take into account other international instruments, given their specificity on the matter. Moreover, it is not up to the Court to analyze or determine individual responsibilities; that task is the responsibility of the domestic and international criminal courts (supra para. 20). Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to rule on crimes is groundless, and is therefore dismissed. B.3. Alleged lack of jurisdiction to decree the invalidity of the amnesty B.3.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 36. The State indicated that the Court lacks “jurisdiction to decree the invalidity of the amnesty” because: i) this was enacted by means of the National Reconciliation Law in order to achieve a negotiated settlement to the internal armed conflict; ii) the amnesty was negotiated with the participation of most sectors of Guatemalan society, and took into account “elements of the truth,” the creation of reparation measures for the victims and measures of non-repetition, as well as the foundations for the incorporation of insurgent groups into national life; and iii) the amnesty in Guatemala is not a “self-amnesty” and does not exclude the most serious crimes of international importance. Thus, the amnesty enacted in the case of Guatemala would meet the requirements stipulated by the Court to be in force. 22 37. The Commission emphasized that “according to the terms of Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention, it is precisely an essential component of the Court’s jurisdiction to analyze the extent to which a State has incorporated the guarantees of said treaty in its regulations, policies and practices.” 38. The representatives argued that “the application of the amnesty provisions of the National Reconciliation Law would contravene obligations arising from the American Convention […] and other international instruments and would impede the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations.” B.3.2. Considerations of the Court 39. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are actions of the State that seek, in a prior manner, to prevent analysis of the merits of a case. Consequently, if these arguments cannot be considered without first analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection. In this regard, the analysis of the validity of a law is a matter of substance. Moreover, neither the Commission nor the representatives have asked the Court to declare the invalidity of the National Reconciliation Law as such, but rather to question its possible application in the present case. For these reasons, the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the Court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction to rule on the invalidity of the National Reconciliation Law is dismissed. In this regard, it cited the Case of Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador and Concurring Opinion of Judge Diego García Sayán. 22