60 316 As well, resolutions 827 and 955 of the United Nations Security Council , together with the statutes of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (article 29) and Rwanda (article 28) oblige all member states of the United Nations to cooperate fully with the tribunals in investigating and prosecuting persons accused of serious violations of international law, including crimes against humanity. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has indicated that, in light of United Nations norms and standards, United Nations-endorsed peace agreements can never promise amnesty for 317 crimes against humanity. The adoption and application of laws granting amnesty for crimes against humanity impedes fulfillment of the obligations indicated. The United Nations Secretary-General, in his report on establishment of the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone, stated that: “While recognizing that amnesty is an accepted legal concept and a gesture of peace and reconciliation at the end of the civil war or internal armed conflict, the United Nations has consistently maintained the position that amnesty cannot be granted in respect of international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of international 318 humanitarian law”. The Secretary-General also reported that the amnesty granted in Sierra Leone had been denied 319 legal effect “to the extent of its illegality under international law” . In fact, article 10 of the Statutes of the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone provides that an amnesty granted to any person accused of crimes against humanity, violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions 320 and of Additional Protocol II , as well as other serious violations of international humanitarian law “shall not be a bar to prosecution.” 315. The Court has also held that crimes against humanity violate a series of non-derogable 321 rights recognized in the American Convention, which may not go unpunished. 316. In the Barrios Altos case, the Court had already ruled that “all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by 322 international human rights law.” 317. In the words of the Court, amnesty laws “lead to the defenselessness of victims and perpetuate impunity” for crimes against humanity; therefore, “they are manifestly incompatible with the 316 Security Council Resolution S./RES/827 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, March 25, 1993, and Security Council Resolution S./RES/955 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, November 8, 1994. 317 The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, report of the Secretary-General, S./2004/616, August 23, 2004, para. 10. 318 Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, S./2000/915, October 4, 2000, para. 22. 319 Ibid., para 24. 320 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of NonInternational Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 321 I-A Court, Almonacid Arellano et al.. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 154. Para. 111. Citing. Baldeón García, supra note 14, Para. 144; 19 Merchants, Judgment of 5 July 2004. Series C No. 109, Para. 192; and Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of 28 November 2003. Series C No. 104, Para. 77 322 I-A Court, Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 154. Para. 112. Citing. Barrios Altos. Judgment of 14 March 2001. Series C No. 75. Para. 41