7 fulfillment of said obligations, or by the non adoption of the necessary legislation to fulfill the latter. (...) The tempus commisi delicti would extend in such a way to encompass the whole period during which the national laws remained in conflict with the conventional obligations of protection, thus entailing the additional obligation to remedy the subsequent detriments resulting from such “continued situation” during the whole period under analysis” (paras. 22-23). 25. I reaffirmed the same position in my Concurring Opinion in the above mentioned case of “The Last Temptation of Christ”(paras. 2-40), where I pondered that, considering that the tempus commisi delicti is the same as that of the approval and enactment of a law incompatible with a human rights treaty, since then compromising the international liability of the State, the modifications in the domestic legal system of a State Party, necessary to its harmony with the rules and regulations of such a treaty, may constitute, within the context of a specific case, a way of non-monetary compensation under such treaty. The Judgment of the Court in this case was adopted on February 5, 2001. 26. A few days later, in an extraordinary period of sessions of this Court held in its central office in Costa Rica, a new chapter on this matter was opened. Due to a blackout in the main building in which the former deliberations room is located, the Court moved to its Library11 building, where there was power (provided by a generator of their own); where it elaborated and adopted its historical Judgment in the case of Barrios Altos (merits), on March 14, 2001. I felt moved at that time, because it was the first time, in contemporary International Law, that an international court (as the Inter-American Court) set forth that amnesty laws (as Peruvian laws No. 26,479 and 26,492) are incompatible with a human rights treaty (as the American Convention) and have no legal effects (operative paragraph No. 4). 27. That is, they are flawed with nullity, ex tunc nullity and ab initio nullity, therefore lacking any and all legal effect. The abovementioned Barrios Altos Judgment is, at present, recognized in the specialized legal bibliography in different continents and in the jusinternationalist circles in the whole world, as a landmark in the history of International Human Rights Law. In that Judgment, the Court stated that - "(...) Amnesty and prescription provisions, and the setting of liability exemptions with the purpose of preventing the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations of human rights such as torture, summary executions, extra-legal or arbitrary executions and forced disappearances are inadmissible, and all of them are prohibited as they contravene rights than cannot be abolished which are recognized by International Human Rights Law. (...) In the light of the general obligations consecrated in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, the States Parties have the duty to take all the measures necessary so that nobody is deprived from legal protection and the exercise of the right to an effective and simple remedy, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. That is why the State Parties of the Convention which adopt laws having this effect, such as the self-amnesty law, commit a violation of Articles 8 and 25, consistently with Articles 1(1) and 2, all included in the Convention. Self-amnesty laws lead to victims defenselessness and to the perpetuation of impunity, so that is why they are patently incompatible with the content and the spirit of the American Convention. This type of law prevents the identification of individuals responsible for violations of human rights, as the investigation and access to justice are hindered, and the victims and their next of 11 At present, Joint Library with the Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (IIDH), that I was pleased to open.