92 alleged continued effects of the amnesty laws, nor has it specified the manner in which the threat to apply them might materialize in the future. 177. Likewise, expert witness Abad Yupanqui stated that: [e]ven though Laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492 have not been repealed by the Congress, they have no legal effect whatsoever […]; therefore, no judicial authority may apply them, since they run counter not only to the Constitution but also to the American Convention on Human Rights and the precedents of the Constitutional Court, which has acknowledged the existence of the right to know the truth. […] If the Congress repealed the amnesty laws, it would imply an express acknowledgement of their effectiveness, which would be at odds with the assertion that said laws have no legal effects whatsoever. Regard must be had to the fact that the repeal ceases the effectiveness of a law without retroactive effects.148 178. In this connection, the Court has acquainted itself with decisions of both general and particular scope, reiterating the inapplicability and inefficiency of the amnesty laws. 179. Among the general decisions is Attorney General’s Office’s Resolution No. 815-2005MP-FN of April 20, 2005, ordering that “all prosecutors of all instances who have intervened before the courts that heard the cases in which the amnesty laws (No. 26,479 and No. 26,492) were applied [shall] request the corresponding Trial or Appellate Court to enforce supra-national judgments,” pursuant to Section 151 of the Judiciary’s Organic Law. Reference to those judgments is precisely to this Court’s decision in the case of Barrios Altos. 180. So far as particular decisions by Peruvian criminal courts are concerned, the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos has been one of the grounds upon which to dismiss “amnesty defenses,”149 "statute of limitations defenses"150, “double jeopardy defenses”151 or 148 Cf. sworn statement effected before a pulic official by expert Samuel Bernardo Abad-Yupanqui on August 17, 2006 (record of sworn statements effected before public officials, page 3531). 149 The defense of amnesty raised by Ángel Arturo Pino-Díaz in the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002) was dismissed as groundless by the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Specialized Criminal Trial Court) on October 20, 2004, making express reference to the Case of Barrios Altos; in the same case, the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Criminal Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed as groundless the amnesty defense raised by Hector Gamarra-Mamani making refrence to the Case of Barrios Altos; in the same case, the Quinto Juzgado Penal Especializado (Fifth Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed the amnesty defense raised by José Enrique Ortiz-Mantas as groundless on November 12, 2004; in the Case of El Frontón (Case No. 125-04) the Judge of the Primer Juzgado Supraprovincial de Lima (First Supra-Provincial Court in and for Lima) dismissed the amnesty defense raised by the defendants as groundless. 150 In the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002), the statute of limitations defense raised by Máximo Humberto Cáceda-Pedemonte was dismissed as groundless on February 24, 2003 by the Specialized Associate Provincial Prosecutor; in the Consolidated Case of Barrios Altos, La Cantuta, Pedro Yauri and El Santa la (Case no. 032-2001), the Quinto Juzgado Penal Especializado (Fifth Specialized Criminal Trial Court) dismissed as groundless the statute of limitations defense raised by Shirley Sandra Rojas-Castro; on October 1, 2003, the Provincial Criminal Prosecutor of Lima dismissed as groundless the statute of limitations defense raised by Marco Flores-Alvan; Superior Criminal Judge of Lima dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Shirley Sandra Rojas-Castro in her decision of December 13, 2004. 151 In the Case of Pedro Yauri Bustamante (Case No. 044-2002), the Segundo Juzgado Penal Especializado (Second Specialized Criminal Trial Court dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Orlando Ver—Navarrete; in the Consolidated Case of Barrios Altos, La Cantuta, Pedro Yauri and El Santa la (Case No. 0322001), the Superior Criminal Judge of Lima dismissed as groundless the double jeopardy defense raised by Nelson Carvajal-García on December 7, 2004.