55 between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. 125. By the same token, the Court has established that “according to international law, the obligations that it imposes must be honored in good faith and domestic laws cannot be invoked to justify their violation.”150 This provision is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. 126. In the instant case, the Judiciary applied Decree Law No. 2.191 (supra paras. 82(20) and 82(21)), which had the immediate effect to discontinue the investigation and close the case file, thus granting impunity to those responsible for the death of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano. Pursuant to the aforesaid, his next of kin were prevented from exercising their right to a hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial court, and likewise, they were prevented from resorting to an effective and adequate remedy to redress the violations committed in detriment of their relative and to know the truth. 127. Pursuant to the case law of this Court: in the light of the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to take all measures to ensure that no one is deprived of judicial protection and the exercise of the right to a simple and effective recourse, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, States Parties to the Convention which adopt laws that have the opposite effect, such as selfamnesty laws, violate Articles 8 and 25 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. Self-amnesty laws lead to the defenselessness of victims and perpetuate impunity; therefore, they are manifestly incompatible with the aims and spirit of the Convention. This type of law precludes the identification of the individuals who are responsible for human rights violations, because it obstructs the investigation and access to justice and prevents the victims and their next of kin from knowing the truth 151 and receiving the corresponding reparation. 128. Therefore, the Court considers that the application of Decree Law No. 2.191 was contrary to the obligations embodied in Article 1(1) of the American Convention in violation of the rights of Elvira del Rosario Gómez-Olivares and of Alfredo, Alexis, and José Luis Almonacid-Gómez, embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, for all of which the Chilean State is internationally responsible. * * * 129. As a conclusion of all questions addressed in this section the Court A), considers that the murder of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano was part of a State policy to repress certain sectors of the civilian population, and that it constitutes an example of a number of other similar illegal acts that took place during that period. The crime committed against Mr. Almonacid-Arellano cannot be susceptible of amnesty 150 Cf. International Responsibility for the Issuance and Application of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A No. 14, para. 35. 151 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos, supra note 140, para. 43.