6 contentious matters is concerned, eloquent illustrations of their firm stand in support of the integrity of the mechanisms of protection of the two Conventions are afforded, for example, by the decisions of the European Court in the Belilos versus Switzerland case (1988), in the Loizidou versus Turkey case (Preliminary Objections, 1995), and in the I. Ilascu, A. Lesco, A. Ivantoc and T. Petrov-Popa versus Moldovia and the Russian Federation case (2001), as well as by the decisions of the Inter-American Court in the Constitutional Tribunal and Ivcher Bronstein versus Peru cases (Jurisdiction, 1999), and in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin and Others versus Trinidad and Tobago (Preliminary Objection, 2001). 16. The two international human rights Tribunals, by correctly resolving basic procedural issues raised in the aforementioned cases, have aptly made use of the techniques of public international law in order to strengthen their respective jurisdictions of protection of the human person. They have decisively safeguarded the integrity of the mechanisms of protection of the American and European Conventions on Human Rights, whereby the juridical emancipation of the human person vis-à-vis her own State is achieved. They have, furthermore, achieved a remarkable jurisprudential construction on the right of access to justice (and of obtaining reparation) at international level. 17. In its historical Judgment in the case, concerning Peru, of the massacre of Barrios Altos (2001), e.g., the Inter-American Court warned that provisions of amnesty, of prescription and of factors excluding responsibility, intended to impede the investigation and punishment of those responsible for grave violations of human rights (such as torture, summary, extra-legal or arbitrary executions, and forced disappearances) are inadmissible; they violate non-derogable rights recognised by the International Law of Human Rights. This case-law has been reiterated by the Court (with regard to prescription) in its decision in the Bulacio versus Argentina case (2003). c) Substantive Law. 18. As to substantive law, the contribution of the two international human rights Courts to this effect is illustrated by numerous examples of their respective case-law pertaining to the rights protected under the two regional Conventions. The European Court has a vast and impressive case-law, for example, on the right to the protection of liberty and security of person (Article 5 of the European Convention), and the right to a fair trial (Article 6). The Inter-American Court has a significant case-law on the fundamental right to life, comprising also the conditions of living, as from its decision in the paradigmatic case of the so-called "Street Children" (Villagrán Morales and Others versus Guatemala, Merits, 1999). 19. Yet another example can be recalled. The definition of the crime of torture found today in two of the three co-existing Conventions against Torture (the U.N. Convention of 1984, Article 1, and the Inter-American Convention of 1985, Article 2) owes its contents to international human rights case-law, rather than to the tipification of the crime of torture at domestic law level. In fact, the constitutive elements of torture in the definition found in the two aforementioned Conventions17 ensue from the jurisprudential construction of the old European Commission of Human Rights in the 17 . Namely, severe physical or mental suffering, intentionally inflicted, to obtain information or a confession, with the consent or acquiescence of authorities or other persons acting in an official capacity.