94 184. Furthermore, the Peruvian Constitutional Court has recognized the value of the judgments issued by international courts whose jurisdiction Perú has acknowledged. Thus, in considering the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Gabriel Orlando Vera Navarrete,155 the Constitutional Court held that: […] not only are human rights clearly rooted in the constitution, but they are also based on and developed by International Law. The imperative mandate derived from interpretation in matters of human rights therefore implies that all official activity must consider the direct application of rules embodied in international human rights treaties and in the decisions of the international bodies to which Perú has submitted. 185. In other cases, the Constitutional Court has analyzed the binding effects of the Inter156 American Court’s decision thus: […] The binding force of the [Inter-American Court’s] decisions is not confined to their operative parts (which indeed affect only the State which is a party to a case), but it also involves the rationale or ratio decidendi for such decisions. In addition, under the CDFT (Fourth Final and Transitory Provision) of the Constitution and Section V of the Preliminary Chapter of the [Code of Constitutional Procedure], the judgment is binding to that extent for the entire national government, even in those cases in which the Peruvian State has not been a party to the case. In effect, the [Inter-American Court's] power to interpret and apply the Convention under Article 62(3) thereof, together with the mandate contained in the CDFT (Fourth Final and Transitory Provision) of the Constitution, makes the interpretation of the Convention in every court case binding for all organs of government including, naturally, this Court. […] The constitutional nature of such binding force, directly derived from the CDFT (Fourth Final and Transitory Provision) of the Constitution, has a twofold aim in each specific case: (a) to repair, since interpreting the fundamental right violated in the light of the Court’s decisions increases the possibility of protecting it adequately and efficiently; and (b) to prevent, since observing it avoids the dramatic institutional consequences brought by the [Inter-American Court’s] disfavourable judgments, which unfortunately our State has got far too many times. It is the duty of this Court, and generally of the entire government, to prevent such a negative thing from happening again. 186. Under the domestic law rules and court decisions analyzed, this Court’s decisions have immediate and binding force and, therefore, the judgment issued in the case of Barrios Altos is fully incorporated into the domestic legal system. If that Judgment was conclusive that it had general effects, such declaration makes it ipso jure part of Perú's domestic law, which is reflected in the fact that such Judgment has been applied and interpreted by state organs. 187. The ab initio incompatibility of the amnesty laws with the Convention has generally materialized in Perú ever since it was pronounced by the Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Barrios Altos; that is, the State has suppressed any effects that such laws could have had. In effect, in monitoring compliance with the Judgment ordering Reparations in the case of Barrios Altos,157 in its Order of September 22, 2005, the Court 155 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of Orlando Vera-Navarrete, File No. 2798-04-HC/TC, of December 9, 2004, para. 8. 156 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of Arturo Castillo-Chirinos, File No. 2730-06-PA/TC, of July 21, 2006, paras. 12 and 13. 157 In the fifth operative paragraph of that Judgment, the Court ordered that “the Peruvian State must effect […] the following non-monetary reparations: […] (a) to enforce the Court’s interpretation of the judgment on the merits “concerning the meaning and scope of the declaration of ineffectiveness of Laws No. 26,479 and [No.] 26,492” (Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations (Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 75, fifth operative paragraph).