55 148. As it has been decided prior, this Court has ruled on the non-compatibility of amnesties with the American Convention in cases of serious human rights violations related to Peru (Barrios Altos and La Cantuta) and Chile (Almonacid Arellano et al.). 149. In the Inter-American System of Human Rights, of which Brazil forms part by a sovereign decision, the rulings on the non-compatibility of amnesty laws with conventional obligations of States when dealing with serious human rights violations are many. In addition to the decisions noted by this Court, the InterAmerican Commission has concluded, in the present case and in others related to Argentina,198 Chile,199 El Salvador,200 Haití,201 Perú,202 and Uruguay,203 its contradiction with international law. Moreover, the Commission recalls 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. These decisions which coincide with the criteria of other international organs 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.204 150. In the universal system, 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 of genocide, war, or crimes against humanity, or serious infractions of human rights […].205 198 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 28/92, Cases 10.147; 10.181; 10.240; 10.262; 10.309, and 10.311. Argentina, of October 2, 1992, paras. 40 and 41. 199 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 34/96, Cases 11.228; 11.229; 11.231, and 11.282. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 70, and IACHR. Report No. 36/96. Chile, of October 15, 1996, para. 71. 200 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 1/99, Case of 10.480. El Salvador, of January 27, 1999, paras. 107 and 121. 201 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 8/00, Case of 11.378. Haití, of February 22, 2000, paras. 35 and 36. 202 Cf. IACHR. Report No. 20/99, Case of 11.317. Perú, of February 23, 1999, paras. 159 and 160; IACHR. Report No. 55/99, Cases 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, April 13, 2000, para. 76. 203 Cf. IACHR. Report 29/92. Cases 10.029, 10.036, and 10.145. Uruguay, of October 2, 1992, paras. 50 and 51. 204 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, Cases 10.815; 10.905; 10.981; 10.995; 11.042, and 11.136. Perú, of April 13, 1999, para. 140. 205 Report of the Secretary-General to the United Nations Security Council. The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies. U.N. Doc. S/2004/616, of August 3, 2004, para. 10.