88 a) ever since the Court’s judgment in the case of Barrios Altos, the State has adopted a series of measures including: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. decisions of the Appellate Court of the Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar (Supreme Council of Military Justice) of June 1 and 4, 2001; resolution of the Fiscalía de la Nación (Attorney General´s Office of Perú) No. 631-2002-MP-FN, published in official newspaper El Perúano on April 20, 2002; resolution of the Fiscalía de la Nación (Attorney General´s Office of Perú) No. 815-2005-MP-FN, published in El Perúano newspaper on April 20, 2005, ordered that all prosecutors of all instances who have intervened before the courts that heard the cases in which the amnesty laws (No. 26,479 and 26,492) were applied must request the Trial or Appellate Court to enforce supra-national judgments; a decision of the Judiciary, which, through Administrative Order No. 170-2004-CE-PJ, published in El Perúano official newspaper of September 30, 2004, directed that the Sala Penal Nacional de Terrorismo (Peruvian Criminal Appellate Court of Terrorism) shall have jurisdiction to hear cases involving crimes against humanity; Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar (Supreme Council of Military Justice)’s decision of October 16, 2001 declared the nullity of the supreme final judgment of June 16, 1995 granting the benefit of amnesty to the members of the Peruvian Army convicted in the military courts for their material participation in the events in the instant case. The new supreme final judgment ordered that the proceedings against the perpetrators return to the procedural status they were in before applying the amnesty laws and, consequently, that the sentence passed under judgment of May 3, 1994 be served, and Constitutional Court judgments, especially in the cases of Villegas Namuche (March 18, 2004), Vera Navarrete (December 9, 2004) and Martín Rivas (November 29, 2005). b) indeed, the granting of amnesty has no practical effects in the domestic legal system; c) in the event the Court held a different view, it should state precisely what such measure would be, since this is not a simple issue concerning domestic law. Under the current Constitution, not only are human rights treaties part of the domestic law, but also any interpretation made by the organs created by such treaties constitute mandatory criteria by which the rights in the country are to be interpreted. Therefore, in the State's opinion, such legal framework would be sufficient in the current state of affairs; d) in the Peruvian legal system, there is no such concept as that of a law being null. However, Peruvian officers, ever since the passing of judgment in the case of Barrios Altos, have been adopted, within their own scope of jurisdiction, measures aimed at ruling out of the Peruvian legal system the self-amnesty laws; e) the State argues that, by reason of the unity of the State, it is incomplete to understand that it confined itself to adopting measures concerning rules that, by their nature, were general, and that were only rendered ineffective for the case of Barrios Altos. The State notes that the Commission’s motion would force the State to