85 240. In addition, in applying the provisions of the Expiry Law (which, for all intensive purposes constitutes an amnesty law) and thereby impeding the investigation of the facts and the identification, prosecution, and possible punishment of the possible perpetrators of continued and permanent injuries such as those caused by enforced disappearance, the State fails to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic law enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention. H. Conclusion 241. The interpretation of the Executive Branch of the State, dated June 23, 2005, the case subject to this proceeding be expressly excluded from the application of the Expiry Law, means that, regarding the specific case of María Claudia García de Gelman, the Law is no longer to be an obstacle that prevents the investigation and                                                                                                                                                                       d) The jurisprudence of various courts of the United States, for example in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which it states that the referendum on same-sex couples was unconstitutional because it prevented the State of California from meeting its obligation not to discriminate against people who wanted to marry in accordance with Amendment 14 of the Constitution. In this way, the Supreme Court declared "the fundamental rights can not be put to a vote; they do not depend on the outcome of elections." Perry v.Schwarzenegger (Challenge to Proposition 8) 10-16696, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States. In the Case of Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court overturned the initiative that would have prevented the legislature from adopting a standard that would protect gays and lesbians from anti-discrimination. Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996). United States Supreme Court. Finally, in the Case of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of expression protected the students from the rule that required them to salute the flag of the United States and of the oath of allegiance to it. In that vein, the Court held that the essential purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, placing them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and conferring the status of legal principles to be applied by the courts. The right of individuals to life, liberty and property, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be voted on, do not depend on election results." West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, (1943), 319 U.S. 624, June 14, 1943, Supreme Court of the United States. e) The Constitutional Court of South Africa refused a referendum on capital punishment, considering that a majority can not decide on the rights of the minority, which in this case are those marginalized by society were identified by the Court, as people could who could be subject to the corporal punishment: "[...] In the same sense, the issue of constitutionality of the death penalty can not be put to a referendum, where the opinion of the majority would prevail over the wishes of any minority. The main reason for establishing the new legal order, and to vest the judicial power to review all legislation in the courts, is to protect the rights of minorities among other people who are not in a position to adequately protect their rights through the democratic process. Those entitled to claim this protection include the socially excluded and marginalized people in our society. Only if there is a will to protect those who are worse off and the weakest among us, then we can be sure that our rights will be protected. [...]. Constitutional Court of South Africa, State v. Tand M Makwanyane Mchunu, Case No. CCT/3/94, June 6, 1995, para. 88. f) The Constitutional Court of Slovenia, in the Case of the so-called "Erased" (people who do not have a legal immigration status), decided that it is not possible to hold a referendum on the rights of an established minority; the Court struck down a referendum that sought to revoke the legal residency status of a minority. In this regard, the court noted: "the principles of a State governed by the principle of legality, the right to equality before the law, the right to personal dignity and security, the right to seek redress for violations of human rights, and the authority of the Constitutional Court, should be prioritized over the right to make decisions in a referendum."Judgement of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia June 10, 2010, U-II-1/10. Referendum on the confirmation of the Act on Amendments and Modifications of the Act on the Regulation of the Status of Citizens of Other Successor States to the Former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia, para. 10.