36 with the essence of amnesty; i.e. the enforcement of the most favorable criminal law for 84 those who shall benefit thereunder. One of the members of the Court-Martial dissented in the reasoning of the majority of the Court since she found that the “murder” of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano had been perpetrated in “times when the country was enmeshed in a domestic war” and that said act, “given the prevailing circumstances and modus operandi, [...] falls within one of the actions prohibited under Article 4 [common] of the Geneva Conventions.” Moreover, she stated that Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions “sets forth that war crimes are non-extinguishable and are not susceptible of amnesty.”85 82(22) On April, 9, 1998, Mrs. Gómez-Olivares, through her representative, filed a motion for review regarding the judgment of the Court-Martial (supra para. 82(21)), on the following grounds, among others: pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure [...] judges may not order the final dismissal of proceedings unless the investigation stage has been concluded [...]. In the instant case, the investigation stage had not been completed, significant proceedings had not been performed, including the identification of the members of the Police patrol and, eventually, the finding of new events that allowed identifying other individuals responsible for the murder [of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano]; […] the amnesty decree law may continue in force only regarding those matters that have not been regulated or prohibited by international legislation. [However], given that the case involves murders committed by State agents, they are international illegal acts in relation to which 'national sovereignty' [...] is necessarily restricted and the possibility to grant an indiscriminate pardon or amnesty is thus also limited; […] the right to the truth and justice to which the next of kin of the victims are entitled is an inherent right that is superior to the right claimed to the benefit of criminals upon imposing criminal liability for the events, which thus becomes an accessory right; and […] from the Geneva Conventions and the amnesty law […] it may be inferred that amnesty may be enforced regarding any matters other than the ‘gross violations specified in the 86 Geneva Conventions.’ 82(23) The Supreme Court ruled on this motion on April 16, 1998, and “overruled it on the grounds that it was time-barred.”87 On November 11, 1998, the Court ordered to close the case file.88 84 Cf. Judgment of the Court-Martial of March 25, 1998, whereas clause 9 (record of appendixes to the application, Appendix 3, folios 43 and 44). 85 Cf. Dissenting opinion of Judge Morales to the Judgment of the Court-Martial of March 25, 1998 (record of appendixes to the application, Appendix 3, folios 44 and 45). 86 Cf. Motion for appeal filed by the representative of Mrs. Gómez-Olivares, (record of appendixes to the State’s final written arguments, Appendix 1, folios 2000 to 2016). 87 Cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court of April 16, 1998, (record of appendixes to the State’s final written arguments, Appendix 1, folio 2019). 88 Cf. Order to close proceedings of November 11, 1998, (record of appendixes to the State’s final written arguments, Appendix 1, folio 2039).