10 argued that the States “cannot use domestic legislation as justification to not comply with its international commitments” and “it worryingly observed ” the annulment of the declaration of self-execution of the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court. The Court has verified that the State, all be it late, has made progress in its compliance with the Judgments issued in the present case, through the aforementioned processes and orders given by the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the Supreme Court (supra Considering 9(a) and 9(b)). However, the decision issued by the Constitutionality Court, later followed by the Supreme Court, resulted in the latter closing the investigation. Therefore, as a result of i) the fact that the progress prior to said closing was part of the limited steps to fight impunity almost ten years after the issuing of the Judgment, and ii) the request made by the State (supra Considering Clause 14), the Court considers it necessary to analyze if the resolution issued by the Constitutionality Court is compatible with the State’s international obligations, taking into account, at the same time, that said High Court tried to adopt its decision “without failing to acknowledge, in any way, the authority of the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court.” Thus, the Tribunal, firstly (2.1) will recall the scope of the Judgments and Orders issued in the present case, in order to establish if the consideration of the Constitutionality Court is admissible in the sense that what this Tribunal has stated does not imply the annulment of the dismissals that have been ordered. Secondly (2.2), the Court will analyze the duties in its constant jurisprudence regarding the obligation to lift obstacles that prevent making progress in an investigation. For this, it will refer to the interaction between international law and domestic law that has been seen in the region regarding this matter. Thirdly (2.3), the Tribunal will make a deliberation between the defendant’s guarantee of ne bis in idem and the victims’ rights in the present case. 17. 2.1. Origin of the State’s obligation to reopen the investigation in the Judgments and Orders issued by the Court In the Judgment on Merits, the Inter-American Court verified that in 1996 “the First Instance Military Court of Retalhuleu dismissed the case opened against 13 soldiers” for the crimes committed against Mr. Bámaca Velásquez. However, on November 22, 1995, the Eleventh 18.