Cambodia. 306 Moreover, these courts recognize that there is a “crystallising international norm,” 307 or an “emerging consensus” 308 with regard to the prohibition of amnesties in relation to serious international crimes; in particular, as regards total or general amnesties, based on the obligation to investigate and prosecute such crimes and punish those who commit them. 284. In the case of the regional systems for the protection of human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that “it was of the utmost importance for the purposes of an ‘effective remedy’ that criminal proceedings [relating to crimes such as torture, which involve gross human rights violations,] are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible.” 309 In other cases, it has stressed that when a State agent is accused of crimes that violate the right recognized in Article 3 of the European Convention (Right to Life), the criminal proceedings and the sentencing should not be obstructed, and the granting of an amnesty is not permissible. 310 More recently, it applied the same conclusion in the case of Marguš v. Croatia. 311 285. Under the African system, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has considered that amnesty laws cannot shield the State that adopts them from complying with its international obligations, 312 and has also indicated that by prohibiting the prosecution of perpetrators of gross human rights violations by granting an amnesty, States not only foster impunity, but also close the possibility that such abuses will be investigated and that the victims of such crimes have an effective remedy to obtain reparation. 313 286. In the same way, various Member States of the Organization of American States, through their highest courts of justice, have incorporated the aforementioned standards, complying with their international obligations in good faith. The Court recalls its considerations in other judgments 314 with regard to decisions of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice of 306 Cf. Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic regarding the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, S/RES/1757(2007), Annex, May 30, 2007, article 16, and Charter of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. S/RES/1757(2007), Attachment, May 30, 2007, article 6. Available at: https://undocs.org/S/ RES/1757(2007). Charter of the Special Court for Sierra Leone dated January 16, 2002, annex to the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone regarding the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone. United Nations, New York (UNTS vol. 2178, No. 38342, p. 137) Article 10; Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia for the Prosecution under the laws of Cambodia of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, dated March 6, 2003, United Nations, New York (UNTS vol. 2329, No. 41723, p. 117), Article 11, and Parliament of the Kingdom of Cambodia. Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea enacted on August 10, 2001, with amendments adopted on October 27, 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006), new Article 40. 307 SCSL. Prosecutor v. Kallon and Kamara, Decision on jurisdiction: the Amnesty of the Lomé Peace Agreement, March 13, 2004, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) and SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E), para. 82. See also paras. 66 to 74 and 82 to 84 of this decision. 308 ECCC. Decision on preliminary objections in the case against Ieng Sary (Ne Bis in Idem and Amnesty and Pardon). Case No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, Trial judgment of November 3, 2011, para. 53. See also paras. 40 to 55. 309 Cf. ECHR. Case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, Judgment of November 2, 2004, para. 55. 310 Cf. ECHR. Case of Yeter v. Turkey, No. 33750/03, Judgment of January 13, 2009, para. 70. 311 Cf. ECHR. Case of Marguš v. Croatia [GS], No. 4455/10, Judgment of May 27, 2014, paras. 124 to 141. Cf. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, Comunications Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97, 196/97 and 210/98, Decision of May 11, 2000, para. 8. 312 313 Cf. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Comunication No. 245/02, Decision of May 21, 2006, paras. 211 and 215. See, Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, paras. 163 to 170 and Gelman v. Uruguay, paras. 215 to 224. 314 73