93 the opening of new criminal investigations152 based on the ineffectiveness of the amnesty laws. 181. In addition, in the amparo proceedings instituted by Santiago Martín Rivas in order to reverse the resolutions issued by the Appellate Court of the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar (Supreme Council of Military Justice), which, pursuant to the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos, ordered that investigations continue, Perú's Constitutional Court held that the State’s duty to investigate the events and punish those responsible for the violation of the human rights recognized in the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involves not only the nullity of those proceedings in which amnesty laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492 have been applied, once such laws have been declared devoid of effects, but also all practices aimed at impeding investigation of and punishment for the violation of the rights to life and personal integrity, including orders for dismissal of the criminal case such as those issued in favor of the petitioner.153 182. In addition, the previous section has discussed some decisions of the Constitutional Court in which, based on the Court’s judgment in the case of Barrios Altos, it denied petitions for writs of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] filed by former military officers investigated or convicted for the events in the instant case who sought to rely on the non bis in idem principle (supra para. 151 and 154). 183. Furthermore, the Court notes that there are internal rules regulating the effect of international decisions and their incorporation into the Peruvian legal system. The Court notes that there are rules in Perú that allow for the incorporation of international decisions into the domestic legal system, and authorizing justice administrators to apply and enforce them. Thus, Law No. 27,775, "Regulating the procedure for enforcing Judgments issued by Supranational Tribunals,” is an important instrument in this regard. Furthermore, Section 154 provides that: 115 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure Decisions from judicial bodies to whose jurisdiction the Peruvian State has submitted need not be recognized, reviewed or examined to be valid and effective. Such decisions are remitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Judiciary, who in turn refers them to the court of final recourse in that matter and directs the competent judge to enforce it pursuant to Law No. 27,775, regulating the procedure for enforcing judgments issued by supranational courts. Section V of the Preliminary Chapter of the Code of Constitutional Procedure, dealing with the interpretation of Constitutional Rights, provides that: [t]he content and scope of the constitutional rights protected by the proceedings regulated in this Code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights treaties, and decisions adopted by the international human rights courts created under the treaties to which Perú is a party. 152 In the Case of Chuschi Authorities (Case No. 023-2003), Civil and Criminal Judge of Cangallo directed the opening of a criminal prosecution against Collins Collantes-Guerra and others for the commission of the crimes of kidnapping and forced disappearance, making reference to the non-applicability of the self-amnesty laws; in the Case of El Frontón (Case 125-04), the Judge of the Primer Juzgado Supraprovincial de Lima) First Supraprovincial Trial Court in and for Lima) dismissed as groundless the defense of amnesty raised by the defendants. 153 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court, File No. 4587-2004-AA/TC, of November 29, 2005 (case of Santiago Martín Rivas), para. 63. 154 Cf. Law No. 28,237, Code of Constitucional Procedure, Publisher on May 31, 2004.