23 as a result of the suspension of its effects due to its contradiction with the American Convention. In this sense, the witness stated, inter alia, that Perú is “compelled to comply with the rulings of the American Convention,” since it has ratified the American Convention. Such obligation is provided in the regulations of its domestic legislation, which provide that the judgments of the Inter American Court are to be executed immediately and directly. He also stated that if “the resolution is of a general scope, it will not suffice with a diffused control over a particular case.” The unconstitutional nature of said law “is evident and, besides, it shall, at least, have effects on the legal decisions whereby the accused are acquitted or provisionally released.” This argument is founded on the emerging principle of the Human Rights law.” Expert witness proposed by the representatives l) Samuel Abad Yupanqui, expert in Peruvian constitutional law After referring to the context existing in Perú at the time of the events, he referred to Peruvian constitutional law, specifically to matters related to the inexistence, invalidity and inefficiency of laws in Peruvian legal order, especially to laws No. 26,479 and 26,492, as well as to the effects and scope of the rulings of the Constitutional Court, both in amparo and constitutional proceedings related to said laws. Besides, he referred to the situation of the Peruvian judicial system and its capacity to give adequate judicial response to serious violations of human rights. He stated, inter alia, that the interpretation judgment delivered by the Inter American Court in the case of Barrios Altos, regarding the amnesty laws “definitely opened […]the way towards justice […] in all the remaining cases.” Therefore, “the fact that the amnesty laws have not been formally abolished does not prevent the judges from investigating and punishing those held responsible, since in Perú all judges have the constitutional power to give prevalence to the constitution over the laws, and consequently they are authorized not to apply amnesty laws.” B) TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES 61. During the public hearing (supra para. 23) the Court heard the testimonies of the witnesses for the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. Below, the Court summarizes the relevant parts of said testimonies. a) Gisela Ortiz-Pérez, sister of Luis Enrique Ortiz-Pérez When her brother disappeared, she was twenty years old and she was also a student at La Cantuta University. From the very beginning the next of kin have been in search of truth and justice. As from the date of the events, they have made formal complaints, intended to sensitize Peruvian society and the international community, to "build up memory" as "it is a way of taking her brother back to life."