70 Chile232, El Salvador233, Haití234, Perú235 and Uruguay236 its contradiction with international law. The Inter-American Commission recalled that it: has ruled on numerous occasions in key cases wherein it has had the opportunity to express its point of view and crystallize its doctrine in regard to the application of amnesty laws, establishing that said laws violate various provisions of both the American Declaration as well as the Convention” and that “[t]hese decisions which coincide with the standards of other international bodies on human rights regarding amnesties, have declared in a uniform manner that both the amnesty laws as well as other comparable legislative measures that impede or finalize the investigation and judgment of agents of [a] State that could be responsible for serious violations of the American Declaration or Convention, violate multiple provisions of said instruments. 237 198. In the Universal forum, in its report to the Security Council, entitled The rule of law and transitional justice in societies that suffer or have suffered conflicts, the Secretary General of the United Nations noted that: “[…] the peace agreements approved by the United Nations cannot promise amnesty for crimes 238 of genocide, war, or crimes against humanity, or serious infractions of human rights […].” 199. In the same sense, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that amnesties and other analogous measures contribute to impunity and constitute an obstacle to the right to the truth in that they block an investigation of the facts239 on the merits and that they are, therefore, incompatible with the obligations incumbent on States given various sources of international law. 240 More so, in regards to the false dilemma between peace and reconciliation, on the one hand, and justice on the other, it stated that:                                                          232 Cf. IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 34/96, Casos 11.228; 11.229; 11.231, and 11.282. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 70, and IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 36/96. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 71. 233 Cf. IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 1/99, Case of 10.480. El Salvador, of January 27, 1999, paras. 107 and 121. 234 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 8/00, Case of 11.378. Haití, of February 24, 2000, paras. 35 and 36. While the Case is not specifically about the conformity with the Convention of amnesty laws, the Commission takes up its position on amnesty laws and analyzes it in light of the principle of continuity of the States. 235 Cf. IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 20/99, Case of 11.317. Perú, of February 23, 1999, paras. 159 and 160; IACHR. Report on the Merits No. 55/99, Casos 10.815; 10.905; 10.981; 10.995; 11.042 and 11.136. Perú, of April 13, 1999, para. 140; IACHR. Report No. 44/00, Case of 10.820. Perú, of April 13, 2000, para. 68, and IACHR. Report No. 47/00, Case of 10.908. Perú, of April 13, 2000, para. 76. 236 Cf. IACHR. Report 29/92. Case of 10.029, 10.036 and 10.145. Uruguay, of October 2, 1992, paras. 50 and 51. 237 IACHR. Report No. 44/00, Case of 10.820. Perú, of April 13, 2000, para. 68, and IACHR. Report No. 47/00, Case of 10.908. Perú, of April 13, 2000, para. 76. In the same sense, Cf. IACHR. Report No. 55/99, Casos 10.815; 10.905; 10.981; 10.995; 11.042, and 11.136. Perú, of April 13, 1999, para. 140. 238 Report of the General Secretariat of the Security Council of the United Nations. The rule of law and transitional justice in societies that suffer or have suffered from conflict. U.N. Doc S/2004/616, August 3, 2004, para. 10. 239 Cf. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights. Right to the Truth. UN Doc. A/HRC/5/7, of June 7, 2007, para. 20. 240 Cf. Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations. Instruments of the rule of law in societies that have emerged from conflict. Amnesties. HR/PUB/09/1, United Nations Publication, New York and Geneva, 2009, page V.