80 223. Likewise, the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia indicated that “the norms related to [h]uman [r]ights form part of the great group of provisions of General International Law, those of which are recognized as [j]us cogens norms, reason for which, they are irrevocable, imperative […] and non-disposable.” 286 The Supreme Court of Colombia recalled that the jurisprudence and recommendations of international organisms on human rights must serve the preferential standards of interpretation in both constitutional and ordinary justice and cited the jurisprudence of this Court regarding the unacceptability of the amnesty provisions for cases of serious human rights violations. 287 224. As follows from the previous paragraphs, all international bodies on human rights protection and high domestic courts of the region who have had the opportunity to rule on the scope of amnesty laws on serious violations of human rights and their incompatibility with these States’ international obligations, have concluded that the mentioned laws violate the States international duty to investigate and sanction said violations. F. Amnesty laws and the Jurisprudence of this Court. 225. This Court has established that “amnesty provisions, the statute of limitation provisions, and the establishment of exclusions of responsibility that are intended to prevent the investigation and punish those responsible for serious violations to human rights such as torture, summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearance are not admissible, all of which are prohibited for contravening irrevocable rights recognized by International Law of Human Rights.” 288 226. In this sense, amnesty laws are, in cases of serious violations of human rights, expressly incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Pact of San José, given that they violate the provisions of Articles 1(1) and 2, that is, in that they impede the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations and, consequently, impede access to victims and their families to the truth of what happened and to the corresponding reparation, thereby hindering the full, timely, and effective rule of justice in the relevant cases. This, in turn, favors impunity and arbitrariness and also seriously affects the rule of law, reason for which, in light of International Law, they have been declared to have no legal effect. 227. In particular, amnesty laws affect the international obligation of the State in regard to the investigation and punishment of serious human rights violations because they prevent the next of kin from being heard before a judge, pursuant to that indicated in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, thereby violating the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention precisely for the failure to investigate, persecute, capture, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the facts, thereby failing to comply with Article 1(1) of the Convention.                                                          286 Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Criminal Appeals Chamber. Case of of the Segovia Massacre. Act number 156, of May 13, 2010, page 68. 287 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Criminal Appeals Chamber. Case of of the Segovia Massacre, supra note 248, pages. 69 and 71. 288 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos V Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of The Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 127, para. 129, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 171.