6. The Court, in its Advisory Opinion No. 6 (of May 9, 1986), held that: “the word laws in Article 30 of the [American] Convention means a general legal norm tied to the general welfare, passed by democratically elected legislative bodies established by the Constitution, and formulated according to the procedures set forth by the Constitutions of the States Parties for that purpose.” (para. 38) 7. Self-amnesties are far from satisfying all these requirements. They are not true laws insofar as they are devoid of their intrinsic generic nature,5 of the idea of Law that inspires them (essential even to legal certainty),6 and of the search for the common good. They do not even seek the organization or regulation of social relations in furtherance of the common good. They are only designed to keep certain facts from justice, cover gross rights violations and ensure impunity for some individuals. They do not satisfy the minimum requirements of laws; on the contrary, they are illegal aberrations. 8. In my opinion, the person who most eloquently wrote about the purposes of law and the injustices committed based on so-called “laws” is Gustav Radbruch. In his famous Fünf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie, first published as a circular addressed to the students of the University of Heidelberg in 1945, shortly after -and certainly under the impact- of the atrocities of World War II, the great legal philosopher asserted that “the three values that Law must serve” are justice, the common good, and legal certainty. However, there are “laws” that have shown to be so detrimental to the common good and so unfair, that they appear to be devoid of “legality.” 9. In his fierce criticism of positivism, G. Radbruch added that “There are also fundamental principles of law that are above any and all positive precepts, so that any law that violates such principles cannot but be set aside.” 7 Furthermore, the great legal philosopher asserted that positivism “was what left people and jurists defenseless against the most arbitrary, cruel, and criminal laws. In the final analysis, it equates law and force, leading to believe that 8 where the latter is present, the former will be as well.” 10. In evoking G. Radbruch’s philosophy toward the end of his life, I shall allow myself to add that self-amnesties are, in my view, the very negation of Law. They overtly violate general principles of law, such as the right of access to justice (which, in my opinion, falls within the scope of jus cogens), the principle of equality before the law, and the right to be tried by a competent court (juez natural), among others. In some cases, they have even covered up crimes against humanity and genocide. 9 5 . G. Radbruch, Introdução à Ciência do Direito [original title: Einführung in die Rechtswissenschaft], São Paulo, Publ. Livr. Martins Fontes, 1999, p. 8. 6 . G. Radbruch, Filosofia do Direito, volume I, Coimbra, Publ. A. Amado, 1961, pp. 185-186. 7 . G. Radbruch, Filosofia do Direito, volume I, Coimbra, Publ. A. Amado, 1961, pp. 213-214. 8 . Ibid., pp. 211-214. 9 . For example, the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) provided for the incrimination of the Turks responsible for the massacre of Armenians, but it was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which “granted” amnesty to the perpetrators of what came to be known as the first genocide of the 20 th century; cit. in A. O'Shea, op. cit. supra n. (2), p. 15; and cf. B. Bruneteau, Le siècle des génocides - Violences, massacres et processus génocidaires de l'Arménie au Rwanda, Paris, A. Colin, 2004, pp. 48-72.