44 such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 88. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the following: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 89. And furthermore, Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 90. In the instant case, the Court has been requested to determine whether the State has complied with the general duties established in the aforementioned Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention upon keeping in force Decree Law No. 2.191 after the Chilean State ratified the Convention. On the other hand, the Court must determine whether the application of said decree law constitutes a violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention as regards Article 1(1) thereof, in detriment of the alleged victims in the instant case. For that purpose, the Court deems it appropriate to undertake the analysis of these questions as follows: a) first, it should be determined whether the murder of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano is a crime against humanity, b) second, if it is determined that such murder is a crime against humanity, the Court shall consider whether such crime may be susceptible of amnesty, c) third, in case it is determined that such crime may not be susceptible of amnesty, the Court shall analyze whether Decree Law No. 2.191 contemplates an amnesty for this crime and whether the State has violated the Convention in keeping such law in force, and d) finally, the Court shall analyze whether the enforcement of such law by the judicial authorities in the instant case implies a violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention. All the aforesaid shall be analyzed in paragraph A) of this Chapter. 91. Once the aforesaid has been determined, the Court shall address, in paragraph B) of this chapter, the allegations made by the Inter-American Commission and the representative of the alleged victims as regards the fact that the military court did not have jurisdiction to hear the instant case, which fact they consider as a violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 92. It should be pointed out that the State has merely objected to the admissibility of the case –issue which has already been determined by this Court in previous paragraphs (supra paras. 38 to 65)- and has pointed out that the Chilean courts of justice no longer enforce Decree Law No. 2.191. The Court points out that the State has not affirmed at any time that the said decree law does not violate the American Convention. Indeed, the Agent for the State at the public hearing pointed out the following: