60 provision benefits, is contrary to clear and binding provisions of international law, and must be effectively suppressed.227 [I]n order to comply with international treaties on human rights, the suppression of the [amnesty] laws cannot be postponed and must continue in such a way that from them no regulatory obstacle can be derived for the persecution of facts that are the subject of this case. This means that those who were beneficiaries of such laws cannot invoke the prohibition of retroactivity of the harshest criminal law nor res judicata. [T]he subjection of the Argentine State to the Inter-American jurisdiction prevents the principle of "retroactivity" of the criminal law from being invoked to violate the obligations undertaken in regard to the persecution of gross violations of human rights.228 164. In Chile, the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the amnesties regarding enforced disappearance would encompass only a specific period in time and not the entire length of time of the enforced disappearance nor its effects:229 [A]lthough the mentioned Law Decree explicitly stated that amnesty was granted for acts committed between September 11, 1973, and March 10, 1978, the crime commenced on January 7, 1975 […], creating the certainty that on March 10, 1978, the date of expiration of the period laid down in Article 1st of L.D. 2191, Sandoval Rodriguez had not appeared and there was no news of him, nor of the place where his remains could be found, in the event of his death […], which makes the alleged amnesty inapplicable, given that the kidnapping continued even after the expiration of the period covered by this order of extinction of criminal liability.230 [T]he Chilean government imposed upon itself, in signing and ratifying [international treaties], the obligation to ensure the safety of persons, [...] banning measures aimed at protecting the harm committed against individuals or the impunity of the perpetrators, considering in particular that international agreements must be fulfilled in good faith. [That] Supreme Court, in various decisions, has recognized that the domestic sovereignty of the State […] recognizes its limits in regard to the rights which emanate from human nature; values that are superior to any norms that may be available to State authorities, including the Constituent Power, which prevents them from being unknown.231 227 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina. Case of Simón, Julio Héctor et al. s/illegal deprivation of liberty, etc., supra note 223, Considering clause 26. 228 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina. Case of Simón, Julio Héctor et al. s/illegal deprivation of liberty, etc., supra note 223, Considering clause 31. Moreover, regarding the role of the legislature and the judiciary in regard to the determination of unconstitutionality of the law, the Supreme Court noted that “considering that Law 25.779 [annulled the amnesty laws], from a formalist perspective, could be deemed unconstitutional, in that it, upon declaring it null and void, violated the division of powers, by usurping the powers of the Judicial Branch, which is the only constitutional body deemed to declare such laws or normative acts null with legal effectiveness.[…] the solution that the Congress considered corresponds to the case […] in a way deprives the judges of the final decision on the matter.” Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina. Case of Simón, Julio Héctor et al. s/illegal deprivation of liberty, etc., supra note 223, Considering clause 34. 229 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Decision of the Plenary on the instance that will see the implementation of the Amnesty Act in the case of the kidnapping of “MIR” activist Miguel Ángel Sandoval, Rol No. 517-2004, Case of 2477, of November 17, 2004, Considering clause 33. 230 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Case of the kidnapping of “MIR” activist Miguel Ángel Sandoval, supra note 229, Considering clause 33. 231 Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Case of the kidnapping of “MIR” activist Miguel Ángel Sandoval, supra note 229, Considering clause 35.