1 Judge Oliver Jackman informed the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he could not attend the Twenty-fifth special session Of the Court; consequently, he did not take part in the discussion and signature of this judgment.

2 Cfr. Trujillo Oroza case. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 40; El Caracazo case. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 41; Benavides Cevallos case. Judgment of June 19,1998. Series C No. 38, para. 42; Garrido and Baigorria case. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26, para. 27; El Amparo case. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19, para. 20; and Aloeboetoe etal. case. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 23.

3 Cfr. Bámaca Vélasquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201

4 Cfr. Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 1, para. 43; El Caracazo case, supra note 1, para. 44; Garrido and Baigorria case, supra note 1, para. 30; El Amparo case, supra note 1, para. 21; and Aloeboetoe etal. case, supra note 1, para. 23.

1 Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure in force of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2 Cf., earlier on, the cases Aloeboetoe (1991), Series C, n. 11; El Amparo (1995), Series C, n. 19; Garrido and Baigorria (1996), Series C, n. 26; Benavides Cevallos (1998), Series C, n. 38; Caracazo (1999), Series C, n. 58; and Trujillo Oroza (2000), Series C, n. 64.

3 Cf., to this effect, my Dissenting Opinion in the case Genie Lacayo (Revision of Sentence, Resolution of 13.09.1997), Series C, n. 45, par. 7.

4 Cf., e.g., my Concurring Opinion in Advisory Opinion n. 15, on the Reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1997), Series A, n. 15, pars. 5-7, 9 and 37; my Concurring Opinion in the Resolution on Provisional Measures of Protectión in the case James and Others, of 11.05.1999, pars. 6-8, in Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Compendio de Medidas Provisionales (July 1996/June 2000), Series E, n. 2, pp. 341-342

5 And the Court adds, in the paragraph 44 of the present Judgment: — “As a consequence of the manifest incompatibility between the laws of self-amnesty and the American Convention on Human Rights, the aforementioned laws are devoid of legal effects and cannot keep on representing an obstacle to the investigation of the facts (…) nor to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

6 Cf. the criticisms of the “ignored amnesties” in the past, in Norris, R.E., “Leyes de Impunidad y los Derechos Humanos en las Américas: Una Respuesta Legal,” 15 Revista del Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (1992) pp. 62–65.Google Scholar

7 United Nations, Declaration and Programme of Action of Vienna (1993), part II, par. 60.

8 Cf. the Joint Separate Opinion of Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and A. Abreu Burelli, in the case Loayia Tamayo (Reparations, Judgment of 27.11.1998), Series C, n. 42, pars. 2-4; and cf. L. Joinet (rapporteur), La Cuestión de la Impunidad de los Autores de Violacione de los Derechos Humanos (Derechos Civiles y Poh'ticos) — Informe Final, U.N./Commission on Human Rights, doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, of 26.06.1997, pp. 1-34.

9 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Advisory Opinion on The Expression “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1986), Series A, n. 6. The Court rightly observed that the word “laws” in the context of a system of human rights Protectión “cannot be dissociated from the nature and the origin of such system,” as “the Protectión of human rights must necessarily comprise the concept of restriction to the exercise of State power” (par. 21).

10 IACtHR, Resolution of 16.04.1997, Series C, n. 46.

11 IACtHR, Judgment of 05.02.2001, Series C, n. 73.

12 IACtHR, Judgment of 29.01.1997, Series C, n. 31.

13 Article 4 of the American Convention.

14 Article 5 of the American Convention.

15 IACtHR, Advirosy Opinion of 01.10.1999, Series A, n. 16.

16 I have reiterated the same point in my Concurring Opinion in the case of the Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic (Provisional Measures of Protectión, Resolution of 18.08.2000, par. 12).

17 IACtHR, Judgment on the Merits, of 25.11.2000.

18 The first Protocol (de 1998) to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides for the creation, — when the Protocol of Burkina Faso enters into force, — of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, which has not yet been established.

19 Cf., e.g., Trindade, A.A. Cançado, “La jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale de Justice sur les droits intangibles/The Case-Law of the International Court of Justice on Non-Derogable Rights,” Droits intangibles et états d'exception /’ Non-Dewgable Rights and States of Emergency (eds. Prémont, D., Stenersen, C. and Oseredczuk, I.), Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1996, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar

20 This latter meaning no longer the simple “practice of States,” inspired by their so-called “vital interests,” as in the systematizations of the past, but rather the practice of States and international organisms in search of the realization of common and superior ends.

21 Trindade, A.A. Cançado, “Reflexiones sobre el Desarraigo como Problema de Derechos Humanos frente a la Conciencia Juridica Universal,” in Cançado Trindade, A.A. y Ruiz de Santiago, J., La Nueva Dimension de las Necesidades de Protectóon del Ser Humano en el Inicio del Siglo XXI, San José of Costa Rica, UNHCR, 2001, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 112 and 117.

23 Cit. in ibid., p. 298.

24 Maritain, J., Los Derechos del Hombre y la Ley Natural, Buenos Aires, Ed. Leviatán, 1982 (reimpr.), pp. 12, 18, 38, 43, 50, 94-96 and 105–108 Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., pp. 81-82.

26 Sperduti, G., “La souveraineté, le droit international et la sauvegarde des droits de la personne,” in International Law at a Time of Perplexity —Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (ed. Dinstein, Y.), Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1989, p. 884 Google Scholar, and cf. p. 880.

27 Zimmermann, B., “Protocol I — Article 1,” Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (eds. Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, Ch. and Zimmermann, B.), Geneva, ICRC/Nijhoff, 1987, p. 39.Google Scholar

28 Meyrowitz, H., “Reflexions sur le fondement du droit de la guerre,” Études et essais sur le Droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge en I'honneur de Jean Pictet (ed. Swinarski, Christophe), Genève/La Haye, CICR/Nijhoff, 1984, pp. 423–424 Google Scholar; and cf. Strebel, H., “Martens’ Clause,” Encyclopedia of Public International Law (ed. Bernhardt, R.), vol. 3, Amsterdam, North- Holland Publ. Co., 1982, pp. 252–253.Google Scholar

29 Münch, F., “Le role du droit spontané,” in Pensamiento Juridico y Sociedad International —Libro-Homenaje al Profesor Dr. Antonio Truyol Serra, vol. II, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1986, p. 836 Google Scholar; H. Meyrowitz, op. cit. supra n. (128), p. 420. It has already been pointed out that, in ultima ratio legis, International Humanitarian Law protects humanity itself, facing the dangers of armed conflicts; Swinarski, Christophe, Principales Nociones e Institutos del Derecho International Humanitario como Sistema International de Protectión de la Persona Humana, San Jose of Costa Rica, IIDH, 1990, p. 20 Google Scholar.

30 F. Münch, op. cit. supra n. (28), p. 836.

31 Miyazaki, S., “The Martens Clause and International Humanitarian Law,” Études et essais … en I'honneur de J. Pictet, op. cit. Supra n. (27), pp. 438 and 440Google Scholar.