should be recalled that the Court has already analyzed the content and scope of amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and No. 26,492 in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru and, in the judgment on merits in that case of March 14, 2001, it declared that they were incompatible with the American Convention and, consequently, they lacked legal effects. 351 The Court interpreted that judgment on merits in the sense that “[t]he promulgation of a law that is manifestly contrary to the obligations assumed by a State Party to the Convention constitutes per se a violation of the latter and gives rise to the international responsibility of the State [and] that, given the nature of the violation constituted by amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and No. 26,492, the decisions in the judgment on merits in the Barrios Altos case have general effects.” 352 In the judgment on reparations in the case of Barrios Altos, of November 30, 2001, the Court ordered the State to apply the decision of the Court in the judgment on interpretation of the judgment on merits “with regard to the meaning and scope of the declaration of the ineffectiveness of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492”; 353 in other words, to accord general effects to the decisions in the judgment on merits. 214. The incompatibility ab initio of the amnesty laws with the Convention has been accepted in general in Peru since the Court declared this in the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos; that is, since March 14, 2001. 354 In addition, in some cases the State has eliminated the effects that these laws might have had at one time. 215. In the Order on monitoring compliance with judgment of September 22, 2005, this Court declared that, pursuant to the ninth considering paragraph of this order, the State had complied fully with “the application of the decisions taken by the Court in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on merits in this case of September 2, 2001, in relation to the meaning and scope of the declaration of the ineffectiveness of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 (operative paragraph 5(a)) of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001.” 355 To this end, it took into account that, on April 8, 2005, the judgment of March 14, 2001, had been published in the official gazette “El Peruano,” and also the decision of the Prosecutor General of April 18, 2005. 216. Bearing in mind the above and based on the period of time over which the said laws were applied, it can be inferred that, of the investigations analyzed, the only one on which the said laws could have had an impact would be the one conducted by the Third Permanent Military Court of Lima in which the archiving of the case was decided on February 7, 1996 (supra para. 89). The case was archived on October 15, 1996, with the favorable opinion of the Judge-Advocate of the Permanent War Council of the Army’s Second Judicial Zone (supra para. 89). In this regard, both the representatives and the Commission stated that the archiving of the proceedings before the military jurisdiction was not a result of the entry into force and application of Laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492. This assertion is correct. 217. Despite the foregoing, it should be recalled that, in the context in which the facts occurred, those laws constituted a general obstacle to the investigations of gross human rights violations in Peru. Thus, this Court has already declared in the cases of La Cantuta v. Peru and Anzualdo Castro v. Peru that, during the period in which the amnesty laws were applied, the State failed to comply 351 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 44 and fourth operative paragraph. 352 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, para. 18 and second operative paragraph. 353 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, fifth operative paragraph, subparagraph (a). 354 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 187. 355 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order issued by the Inter-American Court on September 22, 2005, first declarative paragraph. 78