had not requested the non-application of the Amnesty Law to this case, and the trial judge had failed to decide that it was not applicable, even though an explicit request in this regard had been made in 2006. Consequently, to date, almost 30 years after these grave facts occurred, they remain in the most absolute impunity and, even today, the Amnesty Law continues to obstruct the determination of what happened and the punishment of those responsible. Consequently, the representatives asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights of the surviving victims and the victims’ next of kin to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Pará. 3) Considerations of the Court 283. In the cases of Gomes Lund v. Brazil and Gelman v. Uruguay,452 decided by this Court within the sphere of its jurisdictional competence, the Court has already described and developed at length how this Court,453 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,454 the organs of the United Nations,455 other regional organizations for the protection of human rights,456 and other courts of international criminal law457 have ruled on the incompatibility of 452 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, paras. 147 to 182, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, paras. 195 to 229. 453 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 41 to 44; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, paras. 105 to 114; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, paras. 152 and 168; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 147, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 195. 454 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 28/92, Cases 10,147; 10,181; 10,240; 10,262; 10,309 and 10,311. Argentina, of October 2, 1992, paras. 40 and 41; IACHR. Report No. 34/96, Cases 11,228; 11,229; 11,231, and 11,282. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 70; IACHR. Report No. 36/96. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 71; IACHR. Report No. 1/99, Case of 10,480. El Salvador, of January 27, 1999, paras. 107 and 121; IACHR. Report No. 8/00, Case 11,378. Haiti, of February 24, 2000, paras. 35 and 36; IACHR. Report No. 20/99, Case 11,317. Peru, of February 23, 1999, paras. 159 and 160; IACHR. Report No. 55/99, Cases 10,815; 10,905; 10,981; 10,995; 11,042 and 11,136. Peru, of April 13, 1999, para. 140; IACHR. Report No. 44/00, Case 10,820. Peru, of April 13, 2000, para. 68; IACHR. Report No. 47/00, Case 10,908. Peru, April 13, 2000, para. 76, and Report No. 29/92. Cases 10,029, 10,036 and 10,145. Uruguay, of October 2, 1992, paras. 50 and 51. 455 In this regard, see revised final report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political), prepared by Louis Joinet pursuant to decision 1996/116 of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev1, of 2 October 1997, para. 32, and Report of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. General comment on article 18 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Report presented during the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/56, of 27 December 2005, paragraph 2, subparagraphs a), c), and d) of the general comments, 23 of the introduction and 599 of the conclusions and recommendations. Similarly, cf. United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. Report to the Human Rights Council, fourth session, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/41, of 25 January 2007, para. 500. Also, in the universal domain, the treaty bodies for the protection of human rights have sustained the same criteria on the prohibition of amnesties that prevent the investigation and punishment of those who commit grave human rights violations. Cf. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligations imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, of 26 May 2004, para. 18. This general comment expanded the content of General Comment No. 20 which only referred to acts of torture, and cruel treatment or punishment. In this regard, also, cf. Human Rights Committee. General Comment 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7), U.N. Doc. A/47/40(SUPP), Annex VI, A, of 10 March 1992, para. 15; Human Rights Committee, Case of Hugo Rodríguez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 322/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988, Decision of 9 August 1994, paras. 12.3 and 12.4; Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Concluding Observations with regard to Peru, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.67, of 25 July 1996, para. 9; Yemen, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.51, of 3 October 1995, section 4, para. 3 (255); Paraguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.48, of 3 October 1995, section C, para. 5 (9), and Haiti, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.49, of 3 October 1995, section 4, para. 2; Committee against Torture, General comment 2: implementation of article 2 (prevention of acts of torture) by States parties. U.N. Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, of 24 January 2008, para. 5, and ; Committee against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and recommendations with regard to Benin, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/BEN/CO/2, of 19 February 2008, para. 9, and of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/MKD/CO/2, of 21 May 2008, para. 5. 456 Cf. ECHR. Case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, No. 32446/96, para. 552, 2 November 2004, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania, Communications Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97-196/97 and 210/98, decision of 11 May 2000, para. 83, and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Right. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 245/02, decision of 26 May 2006, paras. 211 and 215. 93