47 Maurílio Patrício, José Toledo de Oliveira, Kléber Lemos da Silva, Líbero Giancarlo Castiglia, Lourival de Moura Paulino, Lúcia Maria de Souza, Lúcio Petit da Silva, Luiz René Silveira e Silva, Luiz Vieira de Almeida, Luiza Augusta Garlippe, Manoel José Nurchis, Marcos José de Lima, Maria Célia Corrêa, Maurício Grabois, Miguel Pereira dos Santos, Nelson Lima Piauhy Dourado, Orlando Momente, Osvaldo Orlando da Costa, Paulo Mendes Rodrigues, Paulo Roberto Pereira Marques, Pedro Alexandrino de Oliveira Filho, Pedro Matias de Oliveira (“Pedro Carretel”), Rodolfo de Carvalho Troiano, Rosalindo Souza, Suely Yumiko Kanayama, Telma Regina Cordeiro Corrêa, Tobias Pereira Júnior, Uirassú de Assis Batista, Vandick Reidner Pereira Coqueiro, and Walkíria Afonso Costa. VIII RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES [RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL] AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS 126. In the present case, State responsibility for enforced disappearance of victims is not in controversy (supra paras. 116 and 118). Nevertheless, the parties disagree in regard to the international obligations of the State derived from the American Convention on Human Rights ratified by Brazil in 1992, and that, in turn recognized the contentious jurisdiction of this Court in 1998. As such, the issue that the Inter-American Court must resolve in the present case is whether the Amnesty Law, approved in 1979, is compatible with the rights enshrined in Articles 1(1), 2,169 8(1),170 and 25171 of the American Convention, or in other words, if it can maintain its legal effects once the State became internationally obligated as of ratification of the American Convention. A. Arguments of the parties 127. The Inter-American Commission reminded that the State indicated that the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the enforced disappearance of the victims and the execution of Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva is impossible due to the Amnesty Law. Given the interpretation of the State to said norm, in addition to the failure to investigate and criminally punish, neither the next of kin of the victims nor Brazilian society have been able to know the truth of what took place. The application of amnesty laws to perpetrators of serious human rights violations is contrary to the obligations established in the Convention and in the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence. In cases of execution and enforced disappearance, the Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention establish that the next of kin of the victims have the right that said death or 169 Article 2 of the American Convention establishes: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 170 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 171 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.