3 10. In the said concurring opinion, I referred specifically to Amnesty Law No. 26.479, issued by Peru, corresponding to the category of so-called “self-amnesties”, which are “promulgated by and for those in power”, and differ from amnesties “that are the result of a peace process, have a democratic base and a reasonable scope, that preclude prosecution of acts or behaviors of members of rival factions, but leave open the possibility of punishment for the kind of very egregious acts that no faction either approves or views as appropriate” (para. 9) 11. I am very much aware of the advisability of encouraging civic harmony through amnesty laws that contribute to re-establishing peace and opening new constructive stages in the life of a nation. However, I stress – as does a growing sector of doctrine and also the Inter-American Court – that such forgive and forget provisions “cannot be permitted to cover up the most severe human rights violations, violations that constitute an utter disregard for the dignity of the human being and are repugnant to the conscience of humanity” (Opinion cit., para. 7). 12. Therefore, the national system of laws that prevents the investigation of human rights violations and the application of the appropriate consequences does not satisfy the obligations assumed by a State Party to the Convention to respect the fundamental rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction and provide the necessary means to this end (Article 1(1) and 2). The Court has maintained that the State may not invoke “difficulties of a domestic nature” to waive the obligation to investigate the facts that infringed the Convention and punish those who are found criminally responsible for them. 13. The principle, in international human rights law and in the most recent expressions of international criminal law, that the impunity of conduct that most gravely violates the essential legal rights protected by both forms of international law is inadmissible, is based on this reasoning. The codification of such conduct and the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators – and other participants – is an obligation of the State, one that cannot be avoided by measures such as amnesty, prescription, admitting considerations that exclude incrimination, and others that could lead to the same results and establish the impunity of acts that gravely violate those primordial legal rights. Thus, extrajudicial executions, the forced disappearance of persons, genocide, torture, specific crimes against humanity and certain very serious human rights violations must be punished surely and effectively at the national and the international level. 14. The democratic system calls for a minimum punitive intervention of the State, which leads to the rational codification of unlawful conduct, but also requires that specific, extremely serious conduct should invariably be included in the punitive legislation, effectively investigated and duly punished. This requirement appears to be a natural counterpart of the principle of minimum punitive intervention. Together, they constitute two ways of putting the requirements of democracy into practice in the criminal system and ensuring that this system is exercised effectively. 15. The Court’s judgment makes it clear that the self-amnesty laws referred to in this case are incompatible with the American Convention, which Peru signed and ratified, and which is therefore a source of the State’s international obligations, entered into in the exercise of its sovereignty. In my opinion, this incompatibility signifies that those laws are null and void, because they are at odds with the State’s international commitments. Therefore, they cannot produce the legal effects inherent in laws promulgated normally and which are compatible with the international and constitutional provisions that engage the State of Peru. The