38 April 4, 2001, the Constitutional Court ordered the case to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals to determine the application of the LRN and eventual amnesty of the accused, as it referred to events that occurred during the armed conflict, in violation of Article 11 of the LRN132. However, it seems that the nature and gravity of the events were not considered in this decision. 129. In light of this situation, the Court reiterates its constant jurisprudence on the incompatibility of figures such as extinguishment and amnesty in cases of serious human rights violations, on which it has clearly established that: The State must guarantee that the domestic proceedings aimed at investigating and [eventually] punishing those responsible for the facts of this case have the adequate effects, and, in particular, it should refrain recurring to legal devices such as amnesty, prescription, and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate liability. In this regard, the Court has already indicated that […] all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and forced disappearance, all prohibited because they violate nonrevocable rights recognized by international human rights law.” 133 […] no domestic law or provision can prevent a State from complying with the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for serious human rights violations[…]134. In particular, when dealing with serious human rights violations the State shall not argue prescription of or any similar measure designed to eliminate responsibility, to excuse itself from its duty135. 130. The Court notes that the events of the Las Dos Erres Massacre, recognized by the State, constitute grave human rights violations. The context of these facts has been recognized by this Court as “a pattern of selective extrajudicial executions promoted by the State, which was directed to those individuals considered ‘internal enemies’”136. Additionally, since the date when the facts occurred until today, there have been no effective judicial mechanisms to investigate the human rights violations or to punish all those responsible. 131. Based on the above, the Court determines that the eventual application of the amnesty provisions of the LRN in this case would violate the obligations derived from the American Convention. Thus the State has the duty to continue the criminal proceeding without major delays, and include the multiple crimes generated in the events of the massacre for their proper investigation, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible for those acts. 132 Article 11 of the LRN establishes that “crimes outside the realm of this Law, or that are nonextinguishable, or that do not admit extinguishment of criminal liability according to the domestic law or international treaties approved or ratified by Guatemala will be processed according to the procedure established in the Criminal Procedural Code.” 133 Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 119. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C, No. 75, para 41, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 182. 134 Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 98. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v Peru. Merits, supra note 133, para. 41, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 182. 135 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Serise C No. 191, para. 147; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra note 133, para. 41, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 182. 136 Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 18, para. 139.