32 have issued rulings in this same sense; all of them States that, as Guatemala, have ratified the International Convention on Forced Disappearance. 88. Taking the above into account, this Court considers that according to nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia, the figure of forced disappearance constitutes the crime currently applicable to the facts of the present case, since the whereabouts of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín are still unknown. Application of the figure of amnesty or other forms of extinction of criminal responsibility in relation to the facts of the present case 89. During the public hearing, the Commission stated that in Guatemala there is a lack of certainty of the scope of the law on national reconciliation –Legislative Decree 145/96- that amnesties political crimes that have been committed within the context of the armed conflict. According to the Commission “this amnesty excludes the crimes of genocide, torture, and forced disappearance, as well as those crimes not subject to statutes of limitation or that do not admit extinction, pursuant with domestic law or the international treaties ratified by Guatemala.” On the other hand, the Commission indicated that some decisions issued by the Guatemalan Constitutionality Court, among them, Judgment 3380-2007 “make it clear that there is discretionality in the interpretation of common and related crimes, by classifying the facts of violence and the violations to human rights committed by state agents as acts related to political crimes committed by groups that sought to modify and alter the organization and operation of the State’s institutions in accordance with a political motivation.” Based on the aforementioned, it also indicated that “the determination [that the facts of this case] constitute crimes against humanity and may eventually be classified within the crime of genocide, would offer greater clarity and strength to the international juridical framework that classifies the actions of the criminal justice system in Guatemala [and] would contribute to limiting criminal judges’ margins of interpretation, while sending a clear message on the diligent investigation of these facts and on the legal consequences […] of a lack of investigation.” 90. The Court observes that the State did not apply amnesty or any other forms of exclusion of criminal responsibility in relation with the facts of the present case. The possibility of this happening is not a matter that the Court may decide upon in this stage of the proceedings. 91. However, we should reiterate to the State that the prohibition of the forced disappearance of persons and the related duty to investigate them and, if it were the case, punish those responsible has the nature of jus cogens.100 As such, the forced disappearance of persons cannot be considered a political crime or related to political crimes under any circumstance, to the effect of preventing the criminal persecution of this type of crimes or suppressing the effects of a conviction.101 Additionally, pursuant 100 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 67, paras. 84 and 131, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 84, para. 157. 101 In this sense, pursuant with Article V of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, “the forced disappearance of persons shall not be considered a political offense for purposes of extradition.” Likewise, pursuant with Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance “For the purposes of extradition between States Parties, the offence of enforced disappearance shall not be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives.” In the same sense, Article 5 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance states that