87 163. 164. Argument by the Representatives a) Self-amnesty Laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492 have completely and generally lost their legal effects and are not applicable in any case; b) the only and direct basis for the nullity of applying the self-amnesty laws is the judgment in the case of Barrios Altos. By looking at the Peruvian legal system from a normative standpoint, it may be said that the Court’s order that the amnesty laws have no effects is part of the Peruvian corpus juris. In addition, the practices of the court and of the prosecutor’s office support this position. In practice, the cases in which the perpetrators of human rights violations relied on the amnesty laws have been adjudicated, declaring the absence of effects of such amnesty laws; c) based on the above-mentioned judgment of the Inter-American Court and on its interpretation judgment, the self-amnesty laws have lost their legal effects wholly and generally. Such acts are not laws but only have the appearance of such, so no law need be “ruled out" from the legal system, as it follows from Article 2, because there is no true law to repeal. In addition, the State, pursuant to such judgments, has assured that the amnesty laws will not be applied in the domestic law; d) the judgment in the case of Barrio Altos is still a “measure of a higher normative value” than the self-amnesty laws, given the value of international treaties and the hierarchy of Inter-American Court decisions within domestic law. The value of such a decision within the Peruvian legal system satisfies the Inter-American Commission’s standard as regards the measure required to repeal the self-amnesty laws. Thus, the self-amnesty laws were ruled out with the certainty and definiteness that an act of repeal should have according to the Commission. Therefore, there is no need for adopting further measures in the domestic law to guarantee the loss of effects of the amnesty laws, and e) the representatives agree with the State in that it is not necessary to introduce further measures in the Peruvian domestic law to ensure the loss of effects of the amnesty laws, which "have been ruled out of the legal system, not through an act of Congress but through a measure of a higher normative value, i.e. the Court's judgment in the case of Barrios Altos." Contrary to the Commission's opinion, they consider that the Peruvian Political Constitution, the legislation and the Constitutional Court's decisions ensure the full application and immediate effectiveness in the domestic law of the Court’s judgment in the case of Barrios Altos. They conclude that, if the Court ordered the adoption of a legislative measure, "regard should be had to the fact that repealing the self-amnesty laws might be inconvenient, since the repeal of a law in Perú is not retroactive, which would lead to the conclusion that the laws were effective from their enactment until the time they were repealed.” Arguments of the State