56 151. 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 facts on the merits206 and that they are, therefore, incompatible with the obligations incumbent on States given various sources of international law.207 More so, in regards to the false dilemma between peace and reconciliation, on the one hand, and justice on the other, it stated that: [t]he amnesties that exempt from criminal sanction those responsible for atrocious crimes in the hope of securing peace have often failed to achieve their aim and have instead emboldened their beneficiaries to commit further crimes. Conversely, peace agreements have been reached without amnesty provisions in some situations where amnesty had been said to be a necessary condition of peace and where many had feared that indictments would prolong the conflict.208 152. In line with the abovementioned, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on the issue of impunity, stated that: [t]he perpetrators of the violations cannot benefit from the amnesty while the victims are unable to obtain justice by means of an effective remedy. This would lack legal effect in regard to the actions of the victims relating to the right to reparation.209 153. In the same manner, the World Conference on Human Rights which took place in Vienna in 1993, in its Declaration and Program of Action, emphasized that States “should derogate legislation that favors the impunity of those responsible for serious human rights violations, […] punish the violations,” highlighting that in those cases States are obligated first to prevent them, and once they have occurred, to prosecute the perpetrators of the facts.210 154. On its behalf, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations has handled, on various occasions, the matter of amnesties in cases of enforced disappearances. In its General Observations regarding Article 18 of the Declaration on the protection of all persons against enforced disappearance, it noted that it considers amnesty laws to be contrary to the provisions of the Declaration, even when it has been approved in referendum or by another similar type of consultation process, if, directly or indirectly, due to its application or implementation it terminates the State’s obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the disappearances, if it hides the names of those who perpetrated said acts, or if it exonerates them.211 206 Cf. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights. Right to the Truth. UN Doc. A/H.R.C/5/7, of June 7, 2007, para. 20. 207 Cf. Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights. Rule-of-law Tools for Post-conflict States: Amnesties. HR/PUB/09/1, Published for the United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2009, page. V. 208 Cf. Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights. Rule-of-law Tools for Post-conflict States, supra note 207, page. V. 209 Final report, revised, on the issue of the Impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political rights) prepared by Mr. Louis Joinet pursuant to order 1996/119 of the SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev1, of October 2, 1997, para. 32. 210 Cf. World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna Declaration and Program of Action. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23, of July 12, 1993, Program of Action, paras. 60 and 62. 211 Cf. United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance of Persons. General Comment on Article 18 of the Declaration on the protection of all persons from enforced