95 [...] [found] that Perú [had] complied with: […] (b) the enforcement of the Court’s mandate in its interpretation of Judgment on the Merits of September 3, 2001 in the instant case "concerning the meaning and scope of the declaration of ineffectiveness of Laws No. 26,479 and [No] 26,492” (operative paragraph 5(a)) of the Judgment ordering Reparations of November 30, 2001). 188. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Supreme Final Judgment of June 16, 1995 of the CSJM (Supreme Council of Military Justice) constituted an act of application of the amnesty laws and was effective until the same tribunal declared the nullity of such act through Supreme Final Judgment of October 16, 2001, consistent with domestic laws and the Inter-American Court’s decision in the case of Barrios Altos (supra para. 80(60) and 80(63)). Such act of application of the amnesty laws was performed by the CSJM with the aim to leave unpunished those it had initially investigated and convicted in one of the military criminal prosecutions and for some time it obstructed the investigation, trial and punishment of the alleged authors of the events, and it meant that the State breached its guarantee obligations, to the detriment of the victims’ relatives. In addition, the parties have failed to provide information showing that ever since the passing of the Court's Judgment in the case of Barrios Altos and the CSJM's decision, the amnesty laws have been applied in the criminal investigations and prosecutions opened as from 2001, or that the laws have prevented further investigations or prosecutions from being conducted in relation with the events in the instant case or other cases in Perú. 189. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, during the time in which the amnesty laws were applied in the instant case (supra para. 80(58) to 80(62) and 188), the State breached its obligation to adjust its domestic law to the Convention pursuant to Article 2 thereof, in relation with Articles 4, 5, 7, 8.1, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the victims’ relatives. In addition, the Court is not satisfied that the State has ever since breached the obligations set forth in Article 2 of the Convention by adopting appropriate measures to eliminate the effects that at some times the amnesty laws —which were declared incompatible ab initio with the Convention in the case of Barrios Altos— might have had. However, as discussed earlier (supra paras. 167 and 169), such decision had general effects. Therefore, such "laws" have not been capable of having effects, nor will it have them in the future. XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) Arguments of the Commission 190. As to the beneficiaries, in its Application the Commission stated that “generally, the persons entitled to [the] compensation are those directly injured by the facts constituting the breach under analysis.” In this regard, it stated that, considering the nature of the case at hand, the beneficiaries of such reparations as may be awarded by the Court as a result of the human rights violations committed by the State in the instant case are Hugo MuñozSánchez, his wife, two daughters, three sons, one sister and one brother; Dora OyagueFierro, her mother and father, two sisters, two brothers and an aunt; Marcelino RosalesCárdenas, his mother, one sister and one brother; Bertila Lozano-Torres, her mother and father, one sister and three brothers; Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, his mother and father and five sisters; Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, his mother and father, two sisters and four brothers; Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, his mother and father; Heráclides Pablo-Meza,