conditions arose coalesced to seek and achieve peace through negotiation. Under the Esquipulas II Agreement, signed in August 1987, the Presidents of five Central American countries agreed to seek a solution to the internal armed conflicts underway in El Salvador and other Central American countries. Among other matters, dialogue and reconciliation were proposed as solutions to the conflicts, and the cessation of hostilities and the democratization of Central American societies were counseled.9 12. The Salvadoran peace negotiations began, as the judgment recalls,10 after the Central American Presidents requested the intervention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In September 1989, an agreement was signed between the Government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) to initiate a dialogue process and to end, by political means, the armed conflict in El Salvador. Following the signature of the partial agreements (the first was the Human Rights Accord signed on July 26, 1990), the peace agreement was finally completed on December 31, 1991, and was formally signed on January 16, 1992, at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City. 13. As this was a negotiated end to a long and intense armed conflict, it was no surprise that the question of what to do about the past was raised. First in the process that led to the signature of the peace and its implementation and, then, within the framework of the on-site verification by ONUSAL, the United Nations Mission in El Salvador. Thus, the Mexico Accords of April 27, 1991, referred specifically to the effects of the violence during the armed conflict and, to this end, established the creation of the Truth Commission, whose recommendations the parties undertook to comply with. In the final peace accord of January 16, 1992, there was agreement on “the need to clarify and to overcome any indication of impunity regarding the officers of the Armed Forces, especially in cases where there was a commitment to respect human rights” and the Truth Commission was cited to this end, emphasizing that events of this kind must “[…] be used as exemplary action by the courts of justice.” 14. A few days after the signature of the Peace Accord,11 the "National Reconciliation Law" of January 23, 1992, was adopted. It granted amnesty to those who had "participated as masterminds, perpetrators or accomplices in committing ordinary political offenses and ordinary offenses committed by no less than twenty persons, prior to January 1, 1992, with the exception, in all cases, of the common offense of kidnapping, defined in article 220 of the Criminal Code.”12 The same law excluded from this pardon those who "[…] according to the report of the Truth Commission, had participated in serious acts of violence since January 1, 1980, whose impact on society demands public awareness of the truth with greater urgency, irrespective of the sector to which they belong.” 15. Subsequently, the Truth Commission explained13 the need to meet the requirements of justice in two ways: "[o]ne is the punishment of those responsible; another is the 9 Among other aspects, the Esquipulas II Agreement contained an explicit reference to amnesty: "In every Central American country, with the exception of those in which the International Support and Verification Committee determines that it is not necessary, amnesty decrees shall be issued that shall establish all the provisions that guarantee the inviolability of life, liberty in all its forms, property and the safety of the people to whom these decrees apply. Simultaneously with the issue of the amnesty decrees, the irregular forces of the respective country shall release all those who are in its power. " 10 Para. 266 of the Judgment. 11 Para. 274 of the Judgment. 12 National Reconciliation Law. Legislative Decree Nº 147, published on January 23, 1992. 13 Para. 290 of the Judgment. 3