the Nation, 315 the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, 316 the Constitutional Court of Peru, 317 the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, 318 the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras, 319 the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, 320 and the Constitutional Court 321 and the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia. 322 287. As revealed by the preceding paragraphs, all the international human rights bodies and various national high courts of the region that have had occasion to rule on the scope of amnesty laws in relation to gross human rights violations and the incompatibility of such laws with the international obligations of the States that enact them have concluded that these laws violate the international obligation of the States to investigate and punish such violations. 288. The Inter-American Court has established that “amnesty provisions, statutory limitations, and the establishment of exclusions of responsibility that are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations of human rights, such as torture, summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearance are not admissible, and are all prohibited because they contravene non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.” 323 289. In this regard, in cases of serious violations of human rights, amnesty laws are clearly incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Pact of San José, because they contravene the provisions of its Articles 1(1) and 2, by preventing the investigation and punishment of those responsible for such serious human rights violations and, consequently, the access of the victims and their next of kin to the truth of what happened and to the corresponding reparations. Thus, they obstruct the full, prompt and effective reign of justice in the pertinent cases and, to the contrary, they promote impunity and arbitrariness as well as gravely affecting the rule of law. It is for these reasons that it has been declared that, in light of international law, such laws lack legal force. Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Argentina. Appeal. Judgment of June 14, 2005, Case of Julio Héctor Simón et al., case No. 17.768, consideranda 31 to 34. 315 316 Cf. Second Chamber of the Supreme Court. Cassation judgment on form and merits. November 17, 2004, Case No. 517-2004, consideranda 33 to 35; Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, Case of Claudio Abdón Lecaros Carrasco accused of the crime of abduction, Case No. 47,205, Appeal No. 3302/2009, Ruling 16698, Appeal judgment, and Ruling 16699, Replacement judgment of May 18, 2010, consideranda 1 to 3. 317 Cf. Constitutional Court of Peru, Case of Santiago Martín Rivas, Special appeal, Case file No. 4587-2004-AA/TC, Judgment of November 29, 2005, paras. 30, 52, 53, 60 and 63. 318 Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Case of Nibia Sabalsagaray Curutchet, Judgment No. 365 paras. 8 and 9. Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Honduras, proceedings entitled: “RI20-99–Unconstitutionality of Decree No. 199-87 and Decree No. 87-91.” June 27, 2000. 319 320 Cf. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, Judgment 24-97/21-98 of September 26, 2000. Also, in 2016, the same Constitutional Chamber declared the unconstitutionality of the Salvadoran Amnesty Law because it prevented compliance with the State obligations of prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment and reparation of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador, judgment 44-2013/145-2013, of July 13, 2016. 321 Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Judgment of July 30, 2002, C-578/02, Review of Law 742, paragraph 2.1.7. - 4.3.2.1.7: “Devices such as the “full stop” laws that obstruct access to justice, blanket amnesties for any crime, self-amnesties (that is, the generous terms that those in power, legitimately or illegitimately, grant themselves and those who were their accomplices in the crimes committed), or any other means that has the purpose of preventing the victims from accessing an effective judicial remedy to assert their rights, have been considered violations of the international obligation of States to provide judicial remedies for the protection of human rights.” 322 Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Criminal Cassation Chamber. Ruling 33118 of May 13, 2010, Record 156, Segovia Massacre. 323 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 129, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 171. 74