83 237. In order for, in the present case, the investigation to be effective, the State should have and must apply an appropriate regulatory framework to develop it, which implies the regulation and application in domestic law of enforced disappearance of persons, given that criminal prosecution is an appropriate instrument to prevent future human rights violations of this nature, 295 and furthermore, the State must ensure that no normative or any other obstacles prevent the investigation of such acts and, where appropriate, the sanction of those responsible. 296 238. The fact that the Expiry Law of the State has been approved in a democratic regime and yet ratified or supported by the public, on two occasions, namely, through the exercise of direct democracy, does not automatically or by itself grant legitimacy under International Law. The participation of the public in relation with the law, using methods of direct exercise of democracy, -referendum (paragraph 2 of Article 79 of the Constitution of Uruguay) - in 1989 and “plebiscite (letter A of Article 331 of the Constitution of Uruguay) regarding a referendum that declared as null Articles 1 and 4 of the Law – therefore, October 25, 2009, should be considered, as an act attributable to the State that give rise to its international responsibility. 239. The bare existence of a democratic regime does not guarantee, per se, the permanent respect of International Law, including International Law of Human Rights, and which has also been considered by the Inter-American Democratic Charter.297 The democratic legitimacy of specific facts in a society is limited by the norms of protection of human rights recognized in international treaties, such as the American Convention, in such a form that the existence of one true democratic regime is determined by both its formal and substantial characteristics, and therefore, particularly in cases of serious violations of nonrevocable norms of International Law, the protection of human rights constitutes a impassable limit to the rule of the majority, that is, to the forum of the “possible to be decided” by the majorities in the democratic instance, those who should also prioritize “control of conformity with the Convention” (supra paras. 193), which is a function and task of any public authority and not only the Judicial Branch. In this sense, the Supreme Court of Justice has exercised an appropriate control of conformity with the Convention in respect to the Expiry law, by establishing, inter alia, that “the limits of the sovereignty of the majority lies, essentially, in two aspects: the guardianship of the fundamental rights (first, amongst all, the right to life and personal liberty, and there is no will of the majority, nor the general interest, nor the common good wherein these can be sacrificed) and the subjection of the public authorities to the                                                          295 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 92; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 66, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 109. 296 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 109. In this regard, the Statement of the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay before the Parlementary Commission, regarding the Gelman Case, which indicated “there is a worrisome point which must be considered: the legal investigations open in the year 2008 are still in the pre-summarial stage, without any formal accusations against any of the alleged perpetrators,” that “this procedural situation of the claim exposes her to risk of being affected by a possible new application of the Expiry Law,” that “if the investigations close without the presentation of an accusation it could be that a new attempt to reopen by the family mebers allows for a new request for an Opinion by the Executive power in the terms established by Article 3 of the Expiry Law, and because it involved an act by the Government, it is possible that it change its position as it did before in these same actions considering, for example, that the case if deemed protected by the Expiry Law,” “that is, that in the actual state of the claim the possibility exists that the report by the Executive branch be reversed, declaring that this claim is not protected by the Law. In this way, a new request by the families could be protected by the Law and finish this process without an accusation.” 297 Cf. General Assembly of the OAS, Resolution AG/RES. 1 (XXVIII-E/01) of September 11, 2001.