52 252. The Commission reiterates that, in keeping with the case law of the Court, the right of access to justice implies the effective determination of the facts under investigation and, if applicable, of the corresponding criminal responsibilities in a reasonable time; therefore, considering the need to guarantee the rights of the injured parties, a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial. Besides, because it is a forced disappearance, the right of access to justice includes the determination of the fate or whereabouts of 223 the victim. In these cases, impunity will not be eliminated unless it is accompanied by the determination of the general responsibility- of the State- and individuals- criminal and of its agents or of individuals. In complying with this obligation, the State is required to remove all obstacles, legal and factual, contributing to impunity. The investigations must be conducted in line with the rules of due process of law, which implies that the bodies of administration of justice must be organized in a manner so that its independence and impartiality is guaranteed and the prosecution of grave human rights violations is made before regular courts , in order to avoid impunity and search for the truth. Moreover, given the nature and gravity of the facts, particularly since they occurred in a context of systematic human rights violations, and since the access to justice is a peremptory rule under International Law, the need to eliminate impunity gives rise to an obligation for the international community to ensure inter-State cooperation by which they must adopt all necessary measures to ensure that such violations do not remain unpunished, either by exercising their jurisdiction to apply their domestic law and the international law to prosecute it and, when applicable, punish those responsible, or by 224 collaborating with other States that do so or attempt to do so. 253. The Commission notes that the Court has analyzed the content and scope of the Amnesty Laws 26479 and 26.492 in the Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. The Court’s judgment on merits of March 14, 2001 in that case 225 found that they “are incompatible with the American Convention [...] and, consequently, lack legal effect.” Specifically, the Court’s interpretation found 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] that, given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 226 and 26492 constitute, the decision in the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case has generic effects.” 254. The Commission notes that, according to the established facts, for 10 years (from July 4, 1995, when the Criminal Chamber of Huancavelica Superior Court declared Amnesty Law 26479 applicable, until the case was reopened toward the end of 2005) the victims’ next-of-kin did not have access to an effective remedy to uphold their rights. For the whole of the time that Amnesty Laws 26492 and 26479 were in force, the criminal proceeding with which the instant petition is concerned was closed, which, because of those laws, made prosecution of the State agents involved impossible. Therefore, while they remained in force, the above laws were a delaying factor in the investigations and an impediment to the clarification of the facts, which situation is imputable to the State. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that throughout the 10 years that the amnesty laws were applied to this particular case, the State violated its obligation under article 2 of the Convention to adapt its domestic law to said instrument. 223 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 124. 224 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 125; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C, No. 162, par. 160. 225 Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C, No. 75, pars. 41-44 and y operative paragraph four. 226 Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C, No. 83. par. 18 and operative paragraph two.