masterminds who have been accused of this crime, it has been indicated in the instance case that this refers to members of the Armed Forces or of the Atlacatl Battalion, collectively, without individualizing specific individuals; in other words, no individuals on active service have been mentioned in relation to this event and based on the LAW OF GENERAL AMNESTY FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF PEACE, […] these proceedings are DISMISSED in favor of any persons who may have belonged to the Atlacatl Battalion at the time the events occurred, for the massacre that took place and THUS THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED.”441 d) Decisions of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice 277. On May 20, 1993, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of El Salvador declared inadmissible the request to review the constitutionality of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, considering that the amnesty constituted an “eminently political act.”442 278. Subsequently, based on two actions for unconstitutionality filed against articles 1 and 4 of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, on September 26, 2000, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the constitutionality of the said articles on the grounds that “these provisions admit an interpretation in keeping with the Constitution,”443 which must be considered by the judge in each specific case in order to determine whether the application of the Amnesty Law was unconstitutional. 444 The Constitutional Chamber interpreted that article 1 of the Amnesty Law “is applicable only in cases in which the said amnesty does not impede the protection of the conservation and defense of the rights of the victim or his or her next of kin; in other words, in the case of crimes the investigation of which does not seek the reparation of a fundamental right.”445 e) Requests to re-open the proceedings 279. In a brief of November 23, 2006, a private action was filed before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera against five members of the Armed Forces of El Salvador and five members of the Atlacatl BIRI for the crimes of murder, aggravated violence, aggravated deprivation of liberty, violation of privacy, robbery, aggravated damage, depredations bearing specific punishments, acts of terrorism and preparatory acts of terrorism, requesting that formal notification be made of the judgment that applied the Amnesty Law; that the decision to dismiss the proceedings be revoked, and that a decision be issued to continue with the preliminary criminal proceedings, as well as various probative measures, based on the judgment of September 26, 2000, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 446 On November 30, 2006, the Second Court admitted the complaint, indicating that “in view of the scale, importance and relevance of the case, it will proceed to make an exhaustive examination of it, following which it will issue a ruling”; it requested the original case file from the Supreme Court of Justice, and it asked the representatives to indicate whether any proceedings existed in 441 Decision to dismiss the proceedings issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on September 1, 1993 (evidence file, tome V, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 3615 to 3616). 442 Decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 20, 1993, case file 10-93 (evidence file, tome II, annex 7 to the submission of the case, folios 1418 to 1423). 443 Decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 26, 2000, in case files 24-97 and 21-98 (evidence file, tome II, annex 8 to the submission of the case, folio 1461). 444 Cf. Decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 26, 2000, in case files 24-97 and 21-98 (evidence file, tome II, annex 8 to the submission of the case, folios 1425 to 1461). 445 Decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 26, 2000, in case files 24-97 and 21-98 (evidence file, tome II, annex 8 to the submission of the case, folio 1460). 446 Cf. Brief of the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador of November 23, 2006 (evidence file, tome XI, annex 17.1 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 6929 to 6999). 91