25 Amnesty laws with the characteristics as those described above (….) leave victims defenseless and perpetuate impunity for crimes against humanity. Therefore, they are overtly incompatible with the wording and the spirit of the American Convention, and undoubtedly affect rights embodied in such Convention. This constitutes in and of itself a violation of the Convention and generates international liability for the State. 92 Consequently, given its nature, Decree Law No. 2.191 does not have any legal effects and cannot remain as an obstacle for the investigation of the facts inherent to the instant case, or for the identification and punishment of those responsible therefore. Neither can it have a like or similar impact regarding other cases of violations of rights protected by the American Convention which occurred in Chile. 93 On the other hand, even though the Court notes that Decree Law No. 2.191 basically grants a self-amnesty, since it was issued by the military regime to avoid judicial prosecution of its own crimes, it points out that a State violates the American Convention when issuing provisions which do not conform to the obligations contemplated in said Convention. The fact that such provisions have been adopted pursuant to the domestic legislation or against it, “is irrelevant for this purpose.” 94 To conclude, the Court, rather than the process of adoption and the authority issuing Decree Law No. 2.191, addresses the ratio legis: granting an amnesty for the serious criminal acts contrary to international law that were committed by the military regime. 95 85. In the course of performing its functions of promoting and protecting human rights, the IACHR has received information from the Chilean State concerning the progress made in connection with Decree Law No 2191, particularly the drafting of two bills, namely: (i) Bulletin 6422-07 dated March 31, 2009, which establishes a law of interpretation that adjusts Chilean criminal law to conform to the international treaties on the subject of human rights (a bill that, as of August 2010, was in the second phase required under the Constitution –“segundo trámite constitucional”); and (ii) Bulletin 6491-17 of April 30, 2009, which amends Article 675 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and establishes a new mechanism for reviewing cases of human rights violations (a bill that as of August 2010 was in the first phase required under the Constitution – “primer trámite constitucional”). 96 In this regard, the Commission has noted that it welcomes the State’s efforts and expects to receive further information on the progress made on the enactment of these two bills as soon as possible. 97 86. The Commission takes note of the State’s argument referring to a Chilean Supreme Court ruling of September 2009 in which Decree Law 2191 was not applied. The petitioners have made the same argument. In the Commission’s view, under Article 2 of the American Convention the State has an obligation to ensure that Decree Law 2191 does not continue to pose an obstacle 92 I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 119; I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 18. 93 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 44. I/A Court H.R., Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of July 16, 1993, Series A No. 13, 94 para. 26. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paragraphs 118-120. 96 Annex 22. Report of the Chilean State, dated August 18, 2010, in Case No. 12,057 - Almonacid Arellano, received by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on August 23, 2010. Annex 23. Observations on Compliance with the Judgment presented by the IACHR to the I/A Court H.R. on November 23, 2010. 97 Annex 23. Observations on Compliance with the Judgment, presented by the IACHR to the I/A Court H.R. on November 23, 2010.