23 the duty to investigate constitutes an imperative obligation of the state that derives from international law and cannot be disregarded or conditioned by domestic acts or legal provisions of any nature. As has been stated by the Court, in cases of serious breaches to fundamental rights the imperious need to avoid the repetition of said facts depends, to a great extent, on the avoidance of their impunity and satisfying the right of both victims and society as a whole to have access to the knowledge of the truth of what happened. The obligation to investigate constitutes a means to guarantee said rights, and failure to comply with it brings about the State’s international responsibility. 83 79. The Commission must emphasize that in the instant case the acts of torture that created the State’s obligation to investigate ex officio occurred in the context of egregious and large-scale violations of human rights, in which at least 33,221 detentions and 27,255 victims of political imprisonment were confirmed, the vast majority of whom were tortured. 84 80. It is the Commission’s understanding that the State has not launched any investigation with respect to the acts of torture committed against Mr. García Lucero. It notes the State’s argument, made during the merits stage, to the effect that the alleged victim had not filed any complaint with respect to the acts of torture. At the same time, however, it observes the circumstances under which Mr. García Lucero was exiled from Chile in 1975 –and has been living in exile ever since- and the petitioners’ allegation that the existence of Decree Law 2191 poses an obstacle to an effective investigation into these acts. 81. The IACHR must point out that the name of the alleged victim in this case appeared on the list of Persons Recognized as Victims in the Report of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (known as the Valech Commission); a report that has been in the public record since November 28, 2004. In the instant case, the petition was forwarded to the State on November 23, 2004. Therefore, at least since November 2004, the Chilean State has been fully aware of the claims alleging its failure to investigate the torture to which Mr. García Lucero was subjected. However, the State has not since launched any investigation into these allegations of torture, a clear failure to comply with its obligations under the American Convention. 82. Time and time again, the organs of the inter-American system have held that amnesty laws which purpose is to obstruct the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations like torture are incompatible with the American Convention, as such conduct is prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law. 85 Amnesty laws “leave victims defenseless and perpetuate impunity for crimes Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 345; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 79, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C. No. 164, para. 90, citing the following judgments: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 347; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 81; I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paragraphs 164 and 165, y I/A Court H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paragraphs 137, 139 and 141. 84 Annex 2. National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (“Valech Commission”) Report, 2004, Chapter IV, section: List of Persons Recognized as Victims, p. 8. 85 The Inter-American Court has written that: “all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extra-legal, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by