23 legitimize the current political system. [...] Secondly, the Decree Law has arguably come to pacify the country, and at the time it was praised, [among others], by the Catholic Church, [and] represented [...] the end of […] political repression in Chile.” “Thirdly, the application of this Amnesty Decree Law has already benefited many people.” c) Expert Opinion of Humberto Raúl Ignacio Nogueira-Alcala, expert witness proposed by the Commission According to the expert witness, during the military rule, the Supreme Court of Chile “supported the military authoritarian regime.” “From 1990 to September 1998, the Amnesty Decree[Law] [was] applied as a rule of thumb and by operation of law as soon as there [was] an indication that the event investigated [consisted] of a crime committed during the time period [covered by the] Decree [...].” “In September 1998, a second stage began [...] with the Case of Poblete Córdoba, in which the court decided that in order for amnesty to be applicable, [the perpetrator] must have been identified beyond all reasonable doubt and prosecuted; otherwise the crime may not be condoned. At this second stage, no punishment is meted out, but the Amnesty [Decree]Law shall apply when the perpetrator is identified. Thus, the author is not punishe[d].” “On January 7, 1999, in the Case of Gómez-Segovia […], the court decided that, in the case of detained-disappeared persons whose disappearance generally qualifies as kidnapping or illegal detention, the Amnesty Decree Law may not be applied, since kidnapping or illegal detention is an ongoing crime, and as such it goes beyond the time period covered by the amnesty […]. In sum, amnesty cannot be applied because the crime continues.” “The judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of November 17, 2004 [...] upheld a decision of the Appeals Court which not only supports the ongoing crime doctrine, but also goes as far as [...] to apply and recognize for the first time the Geneva Conventions of 1948, [and] expressly acknowledges that there was a state of war in 1973, the period when the events [in the instant case] took place.” “In the decision of August 4, 2005 […] in the Case of Colonel Rivera […], the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court of Temuco, which embraced international law, relying on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, […] the American Convention [on] Human Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and on customary law and the principles of jus cogens.” In this case, “the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court reviewed its own prior decisions, saying that there [had been] no state of war in Chile, [and] that, therefore, the Geneva Conventions were not applicable […], and that neither was […] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not because it had not been ratified, but rather, because it had not been published in the Official Gazette […]. Such an interpretation ultimately seeks to sustain a position that goes against doing justice in the case. [A]nalyzing the entire period [...], whenever [the Supreme Court] has imposed punishments, it has done so because it has understood that the crime has gone beyond the period set forth by the Amnesty Decree Law […], but it has always held [that] if the crime is committed within the time period covered by the Amnesty Decree Law, this should be applied.” “The courts of justice as bodies of the Chilean State, in short, have always given precedence to