59 to destroy or decimate a certain group of people, or at least deprive them of a place within normal society. Such a group is identified on the basis of national character, ethnicity, race or religion; and q) the “Amnesty Act 1989” expressly excludes crimes against humanity from amnesty and “is incorrectly considered as a tool for denial of justice.” “If, after investigation, it appears that the events at Moiwana must be qualified as a system of terror against the population or parts thereof, which means that it can be reasonably verified that there is systematic violation of human rights, then these events, according to the law, are excluded from amnesty.” The Court’s Assessment 139. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 140. Article 25 of the Convention provides: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 141. The Court has held above that it lacks jurisdiction over the events of November 29, 1986 in Moiwana Village; nevertheless, the Tribunal does have competence to examine the State’s fulfillment of its obligation to investigate those occurrences (supra paragraph 43). The following assessment will establish whether that obligation was carried out pursuant to the standards set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 142. The Court has affirmed that, under the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25) – remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)) – all in keeping with the general obligation