27 cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment be thoroughly and promptly investigated in an impartial manner, that the culprits be subsequently tried and punished, and that steps be taken to compensate victims in accordance with the Convention. 101 89. Furthermore, in cases related to Peruvian amnesty laws No. 26.479 and No. 26.492, the Court held that they were “incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, lack[ed] legal effect” 102 and that “[e]nactment of a law that is manifestly incompatible with the obligations undertaken by a State Party to the Convention is per se a violation of the Convention for which the State incurs international responsibility [and] given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26.479 and No. 26.492 constitute, the effects of the decision […] are general in nature.” 103 90. It is worth noting that in compliance with the Court’s judgment in the Barrios Altos Case, the Peruvian State reported that a series of measures had been adopted toward the repeal of the amnesty laws, to which the Commission replied that those laws had to be removed from the Peruvian legal system to formally ensure compliance with its Article 2 obligation to adapt its domestic laws, inasmuch as amnesty laws 26,479 and 26,492 have no legal effect as they are contrary to the Convention. 104 Thereafter, in the Case of La Cantuta, the Inter-American Court stated that although during the time in which the amnesty laws were applied in that case the State had violated its obligation to adapt its domestic law to the Convention pursuant to Article 2 thereof, it did not find sufficient evidence to show that the State had continued to violate its obligation, given that it had adopted appropriate measures to eliminate any effects that the amnesty laws might have had. 105 The IACHR observes that in the instant case, the Chilean State is not reporting that it has voided Decree Law No. 2191 of its effects; instead, it is reporting that a court did not apply it recently in a case, which does not imply that the amnesty law is no longer in force. This is different from the aforementioned Peruvian case, where measures were taken to eliminate the legal effects of an amnesty law. 91. Notwithstanding and in keeping with the above-mentioned precedent in the Case of La Cantuta, the Commission found that the effect of enacting the amnesty laws was that so long as they were in force “it was impossible to pursue any investigation against State agents owing to the amnesty provisions.” In this regard, the Commission held that at the time that the aforesaid legislation was passed the investigations into the disappearance of Kenneth Anzualdo were closed without prejudice; however, the amnesty laws were a legal obstacle that prevented the continued pursuit of lines of investigation aimed at clarifying the circumstances of his disappearance. Thus, the IACHR considers that the aforesaid laws were a factor that contributed to the delay in the investigations, which, more than 13 years after 101 Annex 24. UN, Committee against Torture. Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/CHL/CO/5, May 14, 2009, 42nd session, para. 12. Emphasis in the original. 102 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (Case N° 11.385) against the Republic of Peru, presented July 11, 2008, para. 179, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001, paragraphs 41 to 44 and operative paragraph four. 103 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (Case N° 11.385) against the Republic of Peru, presented July 11, 2008, para. 179, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta. Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 187. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos. 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 and operative paragraph two. 104 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (Case N° 11.385) against the Republic of Peru, presented July 11, 2008, para. 181. 105 I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162. Series C No. 162, para. 189. Cited in IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (Case N° 11.385) Against the Republic of Peru, presented on July 11, 2008, para. 181