8 kin are prevented from knowing the truth and receive the corresponding remedy” (paras. 41 and 43). 28. In my Concurring Opinion in that Judgment on the merits of Barrios Altos, I pondered that "To sum up, the so called self-amnesties are an inadmissible affront to the right to truth and the right to justice (beginning by the access to justice itself). They are openly incompatible with the general obligations –those that cannot be dissociated- of the States Parties of the American Convention to protect and guarantee the human rights the latter protects, assuring their free and full exercise (in the terms of Article 1(1) of the Convention), and also the adaptation of their domestic law to the international rules and regulations of protection (in the terms of Article 2 of the Convention). Furthermore, they affect those rights protected by the Convention, particularly the rights to a fair trial (Article 8) and the legal protection (Article 25). With respect to self-amnesty laws, we have to bear in mind that their legality within the scope of domestic law, as they lead to impunity and injustice, are in flagrant incompatibility with the protection rules and regulations of International Human Rights Law, thus entailing de jure violations of human rights. The corpus juris of International Human Rights Law emphasizes that not everything that is legal within the domestic legal system is so in the international legal system, especially when higher values are at stake (such as truth and justice). Actually, the so called amnesty laws, particularly the perverse modality of the so called self-amnesty laws, although considered laws under a certain domestic legal system, are not so in the scope of International Human Rights Law. (...) We do not have to ever forget that the State was originally conceived aiming at common welfare. The State exists for the human being, and not vice versa. No State can be considered above the Law, which regulations´ final addressees are human beings. (...) We have to firmly say and repeat it, as many times as necessary: in the scope of International Human Rights Law, the so called “laws” of self-amnesty are not actually laws: they are a mere aberration, an inadmissible affront to the legal conscience of humanity” (paras. 5-6 and 26). 29. Subsequent to the Judgment on the merits, the above mentioned Construction of Judgment in the same case of Barrios Altos, explained that the ruling by the Court regarding the merits, given that the nature of the violation by amnesty laws No. 26,479 and 26,492, "has general effects” (operative paragraph No. 2). Consequently, said laws of self-amnesty are inapplicable (in any given situation, whether before, during or after their alleged “adoption”), they are simply not “laws.” The Court explanation has had, since then, a sensitive impact in the domestic legal system, not only of the Peruvian State, but also of other South-American States. Regarding to the responding Government in the cas d'espèce, as it is made clear by the Court in this Judgment of the case La Cantuta, “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 Peru's domestic law, which is shown in the fact that such Judgment has been applied and interpreted by state bodies. The ab initio incompatibility of the amnesty laws with the Convention has generally materialized in Peru ever since it was pronounced by the Court in the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos; that is, the State has suppressed any effects that such laws could have had.” (paras. 186-187) 30. Recently, the Inter-American Court took a new step in the evolution of the subject matter, in the same line of the Barrios Altos Judgment, in its Judgment on the case Almonacid Arellano y Otros vs. Chile (dated September 26, 2006). The Court declared that “when expecting to grant an amnesty to those responsible for crimes against humanity, decree law No. 2191 is incompatible with the American Convention and, therefore, lacks legal effects under said treaty” (operative