2 5. For international jurisdiction purposes suffice to make that last comment and, in any event, explain –as even though not essential, in practice this may prove to be helpful in tackling doubts and conflicting interpretations– that, because from the very moment of their enactment they are in conflict with the international obligations of the State under the ACHR, the so-called self-amnesty laws can produce no legal effects whether at the time of being issued, at present or in the future. Basically, such laws are invalid –with no need for a special decision so holding as, in any event, any such decision would be a mere declaration of invalidity— from the very moment they conflict with the American Convention, a conflict arising right from their inception in the domestic legal system, i.e. ab initio, as already established by the Court. 6. In its ruling in the Case of La Cantuta, the Court has ratified the decision based on the interpretation of the Judgment rendered in the Case of Barrios Altos (of September 2001); such interpretation is certainly not the expression of a point of view or a recommendation but a determination –made by way of genuine interpretation—of the scope of said Judgment on the merits and reparations, an integral part of the same decision. The interpretation does not incorporate a new order to the rulings contained in the judgment, but clarifies the terms of that judgment. The judgment rendered in La Cantuta ratifies the general applicability of the position adopted by the Inter-American Court in the Case of Barrios Altos. As a matter of fact, the source of the violation lies in a general-scope provision. The Court’s decision shares the same general scope. 7. There would be no point in holding that a law is “in conflict with the Convention” in a specific case, just to leave the source of the violation standing for future cases. Far from providing a guarantee of non-repetition –a critical objective of the system of human rights protection—, this would leave the door open to a repeat violation. It would be impracticable –not to mention frustrating— to require new rulings by the Inter-American Court, covering and dealing with an indefinite number of cases of the very same nature, submitted one by one to the Court’s consideration, in order to obtain the relevant declaration that they are “in conflict with the Convention.” 8. Furthermore, the Court has also made it clear that the obligations undertaken by a State upon becoming a party to the international convention on human rights are binding upon that State as a whole. This extends to executive, legislative and judicial bodies, as well as self-governed bodies outside of the domain of the three traditional branches, which are a part of the State itself. Therefore, it is inadmissible for one of such bodies to refrain from complying with an obligation that binds the State of which it is a part, or to directly act in violation thereof, on the grounds that another body has failed to fulfill its own duties in the general system for the adoption of and compliance with international obligations. This notion calls for further consideration, exploring all sides and implications, and it obviously points to the convenience of providing, also in this case, the timely and sufficient “bridge” to link the international legal system and the domestic body of law and move past any doubt or contradiction that might arise as a result of a lack of definition on this matter. DUE PROCESS, RES JUDICATA AND NE BIS IN IDEM 9. The Inter-American Court –as has also been the case with other international and domestic courts— has laid down certain criteria regarding res judicata and the related principle of ne bis in idem. Res judicata and the principle of ne bis in idem support legal certainty and entail guarantees that are of major importance to all citizens and, specifically, to defendants. However, res judicata involves a judgment carrying that effect: definition of a right, immutability, finality. The guarantee of ne bis in idem is based on that assumption: the prohibition of a new trial based on the same facts that were the subject-matter of a