64 which is unanimously established in international law and the precedent of the organs of the universal and regional systems of protection of human rights. In this sense, regarding the present case, the Court reiterates that “amnesty provisions, the statute of limitation provisions, and the establishment of exclusions of responsibility that are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations to human rights such as torture, summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearance are not admissible, all of which are prohibited for contravening irrevocable rights recognized by International Law of Human Rights.”250 172. The Inter-American Court considers that the manner in which the Amnesty Law has been interpreted and applied by Brazil (supra paras. 87, 135 and 136) has affected the international obligation of the State in regard to the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations because it prevented the next of kin in the present case from being heard before a judge, pursuant to that indicated in Article 8(1) of the American Convention and violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention given the failure to investigate, persecute, capture, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the facts, failing to comply with Article 1(1) of the Convention. In addition, in applying the provisions of the Amnesty Law preventing the investigation of the facts and the identification, prosecution, and possible punishment of the possible responsible of continued and permanent violations such as enforced disappearances, the State failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law enshrined in Article 2 of the American Convention. 173. The Court deems it necessary to emphasis that, 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 from the exercise of their right to a simple and effective remedy, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. In a case such as the present, 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, 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 prevent the next of kin from knowing the truth. 174. Given its express non-compatibility with the American Convention, the provisions of the Brazilian Amnesty Law that impedes the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations lack legal effect. As a consequence, they cannot continue to represent an obstacle in the investigation of the facts in the present case, nor for the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor can they have equal or similar impact regarding other cases of serious human rights violations enshrined in the American Convention that occurred in Brazil.251 175. In regard to the that argued by the parties regarding whether the case deals with an amnesty, self-amnesty, or “political agreement,” the Court notes, as is evident from the criteria stated in the present case (supra para. 171), that 250 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 160, para. 152, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 186, para. 129. 251 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Merits, supra note 250, para. 44; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 119, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 160, para. 175.