on May 23, 1994, the Third Permanent Military Court issued an official note requesting the appearance of the said Lieutenant Colonel to provide a statement. 165 89. On July 7, 1994, the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima issued its Expanded Final Report in which it ratified the previous Final Report as regards the absence of responsibility of Lieutenant Tello Delgado. 166 On January 18, 1995, a report of the Judge-Advocate indicated that the existence of the offenses investigated had not been proved and that the accused acted in keeping with his duties, hence the case should be dismissed. 167 On February 7, the Permanent War Council decided to dismiss the case. 168 The dismissal was forwarded to the Military Prosecutor who, in turn, ruled that neither the perpetration of the alleged offense nor the responsibility of the accused had been proved. 169 Finally, the proceedings were forwarded to the Supreme Council of Military Justice which confirmed the dismissal ruling and ordered the “definitive archiving” of the case on February 7, 1996. 170 On October 15, 1996, the “definitive archiving” was confirmed by the favorable opinion of the Judge-Advocate of the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone. 171 E.3. The amnesty laws 90. On June 15, 1995, Law No. 26,479 was published granting a general amnesty to all military, police, civilian or any other type of personnel who had been denounced, or who were being investigated, accused, prosecuted or convicted of ordinary or military offenses in the ordinary or military jurisdiction for any acts derived or originating from the fight against terrorism and that may have been committed individually or in group between May 1980 and the date on which the law was promulgated. In addition, it established that the judicial cases being processed or tried must be archived definitively. 172 On July 2 that year, Law No. 26,492, known as the “interpretive law,” was published stipulating that no jurisdictional review of the amnesty of any kind was admissible. 173 The Inter-American Court declared that the said amnesty laws were incompatible ab initio with the American Convention in its judgment in the Case of Barrios Altos of March 14, 2001, 174 and then interpreted this in the sense that it had general effects. 175 These laws were not applied in the proceeding before the military jurisdiction in the instant case. 165 Cf. Note No. 834-94/3JMP-2da.ZJE of May 23, 1994 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 69 to the submission of the case, folio 1886). 166 Cf. Expanded Final Report No. 042-94/3er JMPL-2daZJE issued by the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima on July 7, 1994 (evidence file, volume X, annex 60 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4928). 167 Cf. Report of the Judge-Advocate No. 260-95 of January 18, 1995 (evidence file, volume X, annex 61 to the State’s answering brief, folios 4930 and 4931). 168 Cf. Dismissal decision issued by the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone on February 7, 1995 (evidence file, volume X, annex 62 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4933). 169 Cf. Note No. 119-95 issued by the Military Prosecutor on April 19, 1995 (evidence file, volume X, annex 63 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4935). 170 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of February 7, 1996 (evidence file, volume X, annex 65 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4941). 171 Cf. Judge-Advocate of the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone. Report No. 8968-96/A of October 15, 1996 (evidence file, volume X, annex 66 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4943). 172 Cf. Law No. 26,479 promulgated on June 14, 1995, and published the following day (evidence file, volume IV, annex 83 to the submission of the case, folio 2063). 173 Cf. Law No. 26,492 promulgated on June 28, 1995, and published on July 2 that year (file of proceedings before the Commission, volume I, folio 370). 174 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 44. 34