64 to identify those responsible, impose sanctions, and assure the victim appropriate reparation (Article 1(1) 338 of the Convention).” 330. In light of these findings it is clear that the General Amnesty Law for Consolidation of the Peace and its application in the present case are incompatible with the international obligations of the State of El Salvador under the American Convention. The Commission therefore concludes emphatically that the amnesty law can have no legal effect and cannot continue to be an obstacle to investigation of the massacres in El Mozote and neighboring locales, nor to the identification and punishment of those responsible. 331. The Commission also notes the decision of October 2, 2000 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, mentioned in the Evidence section, whereby the LAGCP was held to be constitutional because it could be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The Commission observes that in that ruling the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice left it to the judge to determine in each concrete case whether the LAGCP was applicable. While that decision opened the possibility – at the discretion of the judge – to continue investigating certain cases such as the present one in which the LAGCP had been applied, the Commission observes that this is has not overcame the serious past and present effects of that law on the expectations of Salvadoran society for truth, justice and reparations to the victims’ relatives. The Commission considers that the very text of the law, by allowing the inclusion of serious violations of human rights, is per se incompatible with the American Convention and that it must therefore be repealed or annulled as recommended in this report. 332. Notwithstanding, the Commission highlights what has been stated by the Court in the case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, in relation to the link between the Judiciary and the guarantees established in article 1(1) of the American Convention, particularly the duty to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations. As established by the Court: when the Legislative Power fails to set aside and / or adopts laws which are contrary to the American Convention, the Judiciary is bound to honor the obligation to respect rights as stated in Article 1(1) of the said Convention, and consequently, it must refrain from enforcing any laws contrary to such Convention. (…) The Court is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of “conventionality control” between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human 339 Rights. 333. In this sense, the national judicial authorities cannot rely on the validity of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace in order to abstain from investigating and punishing facts such as the ones that happened in the instant case. 334. On the basis of the arguments to this point, the Commission concludes that the existence and the application of the General Amnesty Law for Consolidation of the Peace in this case constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in relation with the obligations established in articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims listed in the Annex to this report. The Commission emphasizes that this violation is ongoing and will persist until 338 339 IACHR. Report No. 1/99. Case 10.480, op. cit., para 146. I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154. Paras. 123-124.