30 98. Based on the Judgment on the merits in the instant case (Castillo Páez Case, supra 70, para. 90), the Commission and the victim’s next of kin requested that the events be investigated and that those responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez be punished. They also requested that the next of kin be informed of the victim’s fate and that his remains be located since, for “his parents and sister, receiving Ernesto’s remains is an essential step toward bringing closure to the torment they suffer from the uncertainty surrounding his fate.” They also submitted a report on the internal investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the Police, ordered by the Ministry of the Interior, where mention is made of vehicles and personnel who, according to the representatives of the next of kin, were directly involved in the detention and subsequent disappearance of Ernest Rafael Castillo-Páez. They also reported that in dossier No. 610-91, 14th Criminal Court of Lima, one Carlos Mejía-León is named as the person who headed up the operation; according to unofficial versions, Mejía-León was responsible for taking “Ernesto [Rafael Castillo-Páez] from the San Juan de Miraflores police station for questioning.” During the public hearing on reparations, the Commission and the victim’s next of kin added that “the Government seems to be operating on the notion that the Court cannot order an investigation into the victim’s disappearance because of the two amnesty laws in effect in Peru,” which in their judgment constitute “an obstacle to fulfillment of the State’s international obligations.” They therefore requested that the Court rule on the incompatibility of the amnesty laws with the State’s international obligations, since otherwise the crimes would go unpunished, as the Court held in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case. 99. The State asserted that forced disappearance had been typified through Decree Law No. 25.592, published on July 2, 1992. At the public hearing, Peru stated that its concern was “to comply with the requirements of international organizations; the renewed effort to normalize laws that the Peruvian State was forced to change to save itself as a nation and as a state, demonstrates and confirms the Peruvian Government’s concern.” Finally, in its brief of August 24, 1998, the State pointed out that Law No. 26.926 was enacted this year, which typifies genocide, forced disappearance and torture as crimes against humanity, and establishes severe penalties for them. Peru also pointed out that it had signed and ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 100. At the public hearing, the Inter-American Commission argued that according to the State’s own argument concerning the amnesty laws, Law No. 26.926 was not applicable in the instant Case. It further argued that under Article 6 of Law No. 26,479, an amnesty was granted to all persons responsible for crimes committed as a consequence of the fight against terrorism, whether or not they had been named, prosecuted, tried, or investigated. The Commission pointed out that it had, on a number of occasions, rendered findings on amnesty laws. Such laws, it argued, violate the international obligation that States have under Article 1(1) of the Convention and lead to impunity. The Commission pointed out that this was the position upheld by the Court and was explained in the report presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on October 2, 1997, by the special rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political rights). It pointed out that in that study, “42 principles were adopted, calculated to protect and promote human rights through measures to combat impunity.” The Commission argued that the applicable principle in the instant case is No. 18, [which] concerns the “duties of States with regard to the administration of justice.” When it elaborated, the Commission maintained that “impunity arises from