63 appropriate penalties has been frustrated; to the extent that the legal consequences of the law regarding the right to judicial guarantees are incompatible with the [A]merican Convention [on] Human Rights. 245 To summarize, the unlawfulness of an amnesty law enacted for the benefit of military and police officials who committed [serious violations of human rights], whom enjoy impunity during de facto regimes, has been declared by courts, of both the international community and the States that went through similar processes experienced by Uruguay during the same period in time. Such rulings, given the similarity with the issue under analysis and the relevance they have had, could not be ignored in the examination of the constitutionality of Law [No.] 15.848 and have been taken into account by the Corporation to issue the present ruling.246 168. Finally, the Constitutional Court of Colombia, in various cases, has taken into consideration the international obligations in cases of serious human rights violations and the obligation to avoid the application of domestic amnesty provisions: Forms such as the laws of final measure that impede access to justice, the blank amnesties for any crime, the self-amnesties (namely, the criminal benefits which the legitimate and illegitimate holders of power grant themselves and whom were accomplices in the crimes committed), or whichever other form it takes so as to prevent victims from a obtaining an effective judicial recourse to make their rights count, have been considered as being in violation of the international obligation of States to promote legal remedies for the protection of human rights.247 169. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia indicated that “the norms related to [hu]man [r]ights form part of the great group of provisions of General International Law, those of which are recognized as ius cogens norms, reason for which, they are irrevocable, imperative […] and non-disposable.”248 The Supreme Court of Colombia recalled that the jurisprudence and recommendations of international organisms on human rights must serve the preferential criteria of interpretation in both constitutional and ordinary justice and cited the jurisprudence of this Court regarding the unacceptability of the amnesty provisions for cases of serious human rights violations.249 170. As is evident from the content of the preceding paragraphs, all of the international organs for the protection of human rights and several high courts of the region that have had the opportunity to rule on the scope of amnesty laws regarding serious human rights violations and their compatibility with international obligations of States that issue them, have noted that these amnesty laws impact the international obligation of the State to investigate and punish said violations. 171. This Court has previously ruled on the matter and has not found legal basis to part from its constant jurisprudence that, moreover, coincides with that 245 Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Case of de Nibia Sabalsagaray Curutchet, supra note 242, Considering clause III.8, para. 11. 246 Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Case of de Nibia Sabalsagaray Curutchet, supra note 242, Considering clause III.8, para. 15. 247 Constitutional Court of Colombia, Review of Law 742, of June 5, 2002, Case file No. LAT-223, Sentencia C-578/02, of July 30, 2002, section 4.3.2.1.7. 248 Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Chamber of Criminal Annulment. Case of the Segovia Massacre. Act number 156, of May 13, 2010, page. 68. 249 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Chamber of Criminal Annulment. Case of the Segovia Massacre, supra note 248, pages. 69 and 71.