There is also a growing body of jurisprudence by regional human rights courts ruling that amnesties violate a state’s obligation to ensure an effective remedy for serious violations of human rights. With the 2000 Barrios Altos case, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) invalidated national amnesty laws on the grounds that they violated international law: in its March 2001 judgment Barrios Altos v. Peru (or Barrios Altos case), the IACHR ruled that the two amnesty laws violated the victims’ right of access to justice, which Peru has a duty to respect, ensure, and give effect to, as a right protected by Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights.9 In that same decision, the Court ruled that these two laws “lack legal effect”, due to their manifest incompatibility with the aims and spirit of the American Convention. Finally, the Court ruled that its interpretation, according to which Peru’s amnesty laws lack legal effect, is not only valid for the Barrios Altos case but must receive a general application.10 In the African legal system, Article 7 (1) is protecting the victim's right to judicial protection and to have their cause heard. At a national level, in a case "Simon", the Argentina Supreme Court stated that amnesties law for crimes against humanity were unconstitutional.11 This case shows that national courts have also taken the initiative to invalidate amnesty laws and revoke specific amnesties. In conclusion, therefore, international human rights law prevents states from passing law impeding investigations of the facts about gross human rights violations and the establishment of responsibilities. These provisions do not absolutely exclude amnesty. Often, states fear that prosecution would destabilize the new government and that the military would remain a potent force within the society likely to overthrow this new government. Some argue that amnesties are necessary for the sake of peace and reconciliation between social categories. Be that as it may, states must find the balance between the necessity to fight impunity, especially for core international crimes, and the necessity to restore peace, putting amnesties on the negotiation table. However, states that have undergone situations requiring political transition may not have the means to prosecute every crime and offence. They could then focus on some prosecutions such as those reflecting the commission of systematic violations or emblematic crimes.12 This leads to the conclusion that if the exigencies of justice can be considered met, amnesty will not necessarily be contrary to international law. A balance should then be found for amnesty to serve a sustainable peace. Due respect of international law is the first step to prevent an amnesty from going against stability and reconciliation in the long run. But experiences in other countries showed that for an amnesty to be legitimate, other conditions and principles must be followed. 3. Experience from Elsewhere: amnesty for grave crimes- a comparative analysis 9 IACHR, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Ser. C, No. 75, par. 43, cited in Cassel, D. Chapter 6, “The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights”, in Victims Unsilenced, The Inter-American Human Rights System and Transitional Justice in Latin America, July 2007, Due Process of Law Foundation, 2007, pg.155, at http://www.dplf.org/uploads/1190403828.pdf 10 IACHR, Barrios Altos Case, Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67, American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 3, 2001, Ser. C, No. 83, second operative paragraph cited in Ibid, pg.155 11 Supreme Court of Argentina. Simon, Julio Héctor y otros s/ privacionillegitima de la libertad, etc. Case 17.768, june 14, 2005. 12 The United Nations in general and its Secretary-General in particular agreed with this position in respect to the explicit limitation of the jurisdiction of the Special Court of Sierra Leone: limiting it to the most responsible perpetrators. 4