69 193. When a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, all of its bodies, including its judges, are also subject to such a treaty, and this obligates them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. The Judicial Branch must exercise “control of conformity with the Convention” ex officio of the harmonization of the domestic norms with the American Convention, evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the Judicial Branch should bear in mind not only the treaty, but also the corresponding interpretation made by the Inter-American Court, the final interpreter of the American Convention. 228 194. Justice, to be such, must be opportune, and reach the desired or awaited effet utile with the action, and particularly dealing with cases of serious human rights violations, the principle of effectiveness of the investigation of the facts and the determination of the punishment of those responsible must prevail. 229 D. Amnesty Laws in the opinion of other international bodies. 195. Amnesties or similar forms have been one of the obstacles alleged by some States in the investigation, and where applicable, punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations.230 This Court, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the organs of the United Nations, and other universal and regional organs for the protection of human rights have ruled on the non-compatibility of amnesty laws related to serious human rights violations with international law and the international obligations of States. 196. As it has been decided prior, this Court has ruled on the non-compatibility of amnesties with the American Convention in cases of serious human rights violations related to Peru (Barrios Altos and La Cantuta), Chile (Almonacid Arellano et al.), and Brazil (Gomes Lund et al.). 197. In the Inter-American System of Human Rights, of which Uruguay forms part by a sovereign decision, the rulings on the non-compatibility of amnesty laws with conventional obligations of States when dealing with serious human rights violations are many. In addition to the decisions noted by this Court, the Inter-American Commission has concluded, in the present case and in others related to Argentina231,                                                          228 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 176, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 225. 229 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C. No. 168, para. 115; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 195; and Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 74, para. 201. 230 In the present case, the Court refers generally to the term “amnesties” to refer to norms that, independent of the term used, seek the seem purposes. 231 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 28/92, Casos 10.147; 10.181; 10.240; 10.262; 10.309, and 10.311. Argentina, of October 2, 1992, paras. 40 and 41.