46 Judiciary, that it comprised all events originating in the course of or as a result of the fight against terrorisms from May 1980 until June 14, 1995, notwithstanding that military and police officers or civilians involved had been subjected to report proceedings, inquiry, formal investigation, criminal proceedings or conviction, and that all pending or executory proceedings had to be definitely closed and filed. 80(62) On March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court passed judgment in the Case Barrios Altos, declaring that amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492 are incompatible with the American Convention and, therefore, they lack legal effects. Thereafter, the Inter-American Court passed Interpretation Judgment on the merits determining that —owing to the nature of the violation caused by amnesty laws Nos. 26,479 and 26,492— the decision made in said judgment would “have general effects.” 80(63) On October 16, 2001, regarding case No. 157-V-93, “to which Amnesty Laws applied, […] in order to comply with the interpretation judgment rendered by the InterAmerican Court […] on September 3 [2001] in re ‘Barrios Altos’,” the SCMJ Joint Chamber decided as follows: […] to declare NULL AND VOID the Supreme Court Judgment of June 16, 1995, in full, whereby it was decided to grant General Amnesty to Peruvian Brigade Army General Juan Rivero-Lazo, Peruvian Army Colonel Eliseo Pichilingue-Guevara, Peruvian Army Captain José Adolfo VelardeAstete, Peruvian Army Lieutenant Aquilino Portella-Núñez, Peruvian Army Third-Rank Technicians Julio Chuqui-Aguirre, Nelson Rogelio Carbajal-García, Jesús Antonio Sosa-Saavedra, and to order the halt of proceedings brought against Retired Peruvian Army Lieutenant Aquilino PortellaNúñez. […] to reverse these proceedings to the procedural stage prior to the application of amnesty, as legal effects arising from the amnesty benefit granted to these defendants have become ineffective, and therefore to remand this case to the Investigating Officer so that he can comply with the law and enforce the provisions of judgment rendered on May 3, 1994.45 They were so remanded. 80(64) This is how the convictions entered against some military members in the SCMJ’s judgment of May 3, 1994, regained effects (supra paras. 80(54), 80(55) and 80(60). However, there is no record that these sentences have indeed been executed (supra para. 66). 80(65) Ms. Alejandrina Raida Cóndor-Sáez and Ms. Rosario Muñoz-Sánchez requested the SCMJ that the proceedings pending in the military court in connection with the case of La Cantuta be declared null and void “as they have been allegedly altered in order to bar possible civil proceedings [against Vladimiro Montesinos-Torres].” 46 80(66) On June 15, 2004, the SCMJ rejected said petition for declaration of nullity, as it considered inter alia that “there are no legal mechanisms or legal recourses whatsoever or any procedural manner that could warrant that a declaration of nullity be entered against the Supreme Court Judgment when it has become res judicata; that there are three actions to seek declaration of nullity against a fraudulent res judicata […] no one of which applies to 45 Cf. Judgment of October 16, 2001, rendered by the Supreme Council of Military Justice, a copy of which has been added to the file held by the Commission (record of Appendixes to application, Appendix 43(l), pp. 16857). 46 Cf. Judgment of July 15, 2004, rendered by the Supreme Council of Military Justice (record of Appendixes to application, Appendix 43(k), p. 1682).