-37156. As was previously stated, the criminal proceedings against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo were archived for more than seven years and four months due to the application of Amnesty Law N° 26.479 (supra paras. 59 and 64). In 2003, the Provincial Court ordered the “desarchivamiento” (supra para. 64) of the case because “by extended application it is necessary to apply to the present case what the Inter-American Court decided [in the Barrios Altos v. Peru case]” and indicated that the Court had specified that that law and Law No 26.492 were “null and void erga omnes.”139 157. The domestic court concluded in its decision of 2008 that it was a case of homicide and serious injuries and held that Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo had “acted with gross negligence,” deciding also that “the investigation did not reveal a decision to kill the passengers,”140 which the Commission considered an “accidental shot.” However, in the Barrios Altos v. Peru case this Court held that amnesty laws N° 26.479 and No 26.492 were incompatible with the American Convention since they did not permit the investigation of acts constituting serious human rights violations and, therefore, they lacked legal effect for this type of violation and for “other cases that have occurred in Peru, where the rights established in the American Convention have been violated.”141 158. The Court concludes that the State did not comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic legislation, as established in Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 thereof, due to the application of Amnesty Law No 26.479 in the proceedings against Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo, to the detriment of Mr. Bejarano Laura and the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez. B.2. The domestic normative on the use of force 159. With respect to the violation of the obligation to adapt the domestic laws with reference to the normative on the use of force, the Court notes that the representatives indicated that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated for two distinct reasons: a) the lack of a domestic normative on the use of force at the time of the incident and b) the existence of a domestic normative after the incident that would be incompatible with the American Convention. 160. With regard to the first point, in order to analyze the compatibility of the domestic normative with international law when the incident occurred, it is necessary in the first place to determine the applicable domestic norms, as well as the corresponding norms of international law and, secondly, to analyze the compatibility of the domestic order with the international order. 161. The Court recalls that the present case involves a shot fired by a member of the Army that caused the deaths of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez and that seriously wounded Mr. Bejarano Laura (supra para. 1), which were characterized by the domestic court as crimes of simple homicide and of serious injuries due to gross negligence. Although it was an operation of the Peruvian Army, the use of arms by the soldiers on the patrol was not authorized. As was stated, the batallion, of which the accused was a member, was on patrol with the mission of stopping pedestrians and requesting their identification documents. Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 283. 139 Decision of the Court of January 21, 2003 (evidence file, folio 242). Decision of the National Criminal Chamber of July 23, 2008 (evidence file, folios 60 and 61). The court added that the accused “must assume the risk of the life and physical integrity of the occupants of the microbus, in manipulating the FAL rifle in the direction of the vehicle, […] reason for which he should not cock his firearm pointing to the vehicle.” 140 141 Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 44.