86 Muñoz-Atanasio, Zorka Muñoz-Rodríguez, Vladimir Ilich Muñoz-Sarria, Rosario MuñozSánchez, Fedor Muñoz-Sánchez, José Esteban Oyague-Velazco, Pilar Sara Fierro-Huamán, Carmen Oyague-Velazco, Jaime Oyague-Velazco, Demesia Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, Augusto Lozano-Lozano, Juana Torres de Lozano, Víctor Andrés Ortiz-Torres, Magna Rosa Perea de Ortiz, Andrea Gisela Ortiz-Perea, Edith Luzmila Ortiz-Perea, Gaby Lorena Ortiz-Perea, Natalia Milagros Ortiz-Perea, Haydee Ortiz-Chunga, Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Saez, Hilario Jaime Amaro-Ancco, María Amaro-Cóndor, Susana Amaro-Cóndor, Carlos Alberto AmaroCóndor, Carmen Rosa Amaro-Cóndor, Juan Luis Amaro-Cóndor, Martín Hilario AmaroCóndor, Francisco Manuel Amaro-Cóndor, José Ariol Teodoro-León, Edelmira Espinoza-Mory, Bertila Bravo-Trujillo, José Faustino Pablo-Mateo, Serafina Meza-Aranda, Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo, Isabel Figueroa-Aguilar, Román Mariños-Eusebio, Rosario Carpio CardosoFigueroa, Viviana Mariños-Figueroa, Marcia Claudina Mariños-Figueroa, Margarita MariñosFigueroa de Padilla, Carmen Chipana de Flores and Celso Flores-Quispe. XI GENERAL DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LAW MEASURES (ARTICLE 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 162. Argument by the Commission a) the formal existence of amnesty laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492 in the Peruvian legal system constitutes per se an infringement of Article 2 of the Convention. Such Article includes the positive duty of the States to repeal any legislation that runs counter to its aim and purpose; b) since the legal system does not ensure the nullity and ineffectiveness of the amnesty laws, the State is liable for the failure to comply with the duty to have its legal system conform to the Convention. Thus, the Commission requested that the Court direct the State to adopt measures to guarantee that the laws are “deprived of effects;” c) in its final arguments, the Commission recognized that the State has adopted measures “aimed at partly curing the structural impunity that prevailed in the previous decade” and nevertheless, citing recent decisions issued by the Court and “taking into account its power to regard any provision in the domestic law of a State Party as violating the State's duties," it deemed it "necessary for the State to assure that such laws are ruled out from its legal system.” Although the Commission considered that “it would not be appropriate to issue a decision on the specific characteristics of the official instrument aimed at repealing the amnesty laws," it pointed out that the concept of “repeal” is directly linked to the “principle of the rule of law and to that of legal certainty [...], which requires that the law be repealed by virtue of an official instrument of equal or superior hierarchy," which, in its opinion, none of the measures adopted so far by state organs has satisfied; and d) none of the measures adopted by the State have been adequate to assure that the amnesty laws are repealed with the requisite legal certainty and finality pursuant to the full observance the Rule of Law. As long as they are not ruled out from the Peruvian legal system, there is no adequate judicial guarantee that the amnesty laws will continue to be ineffective.