10 Commission Delegate (Commissioner Paolo Carozza), lucidly and correctly stated that the amnesty laws of the Fujimori regime had to be abolished (term used by this Court in the Judgment of Barrios Altos) so as to make it clear that they never had validity regarding the American Convention, being contrary to the jus cogens (cf. infra). 34. Also, an equally lucid and substantial amicus curiae submitted by the Institute of Legal Defense -Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL)- with offices in Lima, Peru, urged the Court to declare self-amnesty laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 inexistent (pp. 4 and 40), remarking that the international courts jurisprudence, among which that of the Inter-American Convention, has immediate effects, direct application and is binding, thus incorporating “directly in the Peruvian corpus juris" (p. 30). The said amicus curiae of the IDL added that those self-amnesty laws “are inexistent,” as they “exceeded the intangible limit (constitutional guarantee of human rights”, and were placed “in an extralegal and extraconstitutional scope” (p. 38). The amicus curiae of the IDL concluded that "there is a repeated, consistent and uniform practice of the Peruvian Attorney General Office and the Peruvian Judicial Power in the sense that such self-amnesty laws lack legal effects and do not constitute an obstacle for starting the investigations, prosecution and punishment of human rights infringers; there is a set of decisions issued by the Constitutional Court understanding that, within the domestic scope and according to the text of the Peruvian Constitution, the procedural obstacles hindering the punishment of human rights violations are inadmissible, and that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights Court is of direct application in the domestic legal system (...). For the same reasons, it is not necessary that the Peruvian State adopts any additional provisions to those already assumed, in the domestic law, to guarantee the lack of legal effects of self-amnesty laws in an effective way. (...) In the particular case of the Peruvian self-amnesty laws, it is worth mentioning that, considering their nonexisting condition, they are inefficient from their origin (as they were not part of the domestic legal system they produced no legal effect whatsoever)” (p. 39). 35. The above mentioned participants of the public hearing before this Court, as well as the aforementioned amicus curiae, expressed a common concern, and also a common purpose, even though through arguments of different nuances. I understand that the Inter-American Court has paid attention to this common concern and has contributed to this also common purpose, when determining, in a very clear way, that the so called self-amnesty “laws” “were unable to generate effects, do not keep them at present, nor can they be generated in the future.”12 Said “laws” of selfamnesty are not truly laws, but a legal aberration, an affront to the recta ratio. III. The Inadmissible Aggression against the Universitas. 36. There is another aspect in this case of La Cantuta that deeply moves me, at the time I complete 12 years as Incumbent Judge of this Court and 30 years as university Professor.13 I find myself obliged to express my unbreakable faith in the Universitas, and my conviction that, in the cas d'espèce, apart from the State crime perpetrated in the victims detriment (a Professor and 9 university students) and their next of kin, an inadmissible aggression was committed against an institution of 12 13 Para. 189, and operative paragraph No. 7 (emphasis added). Permanently settled in Brasilia, but as invited Professor in many of the main Universities in every continent.