A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 conduct thorough investigations into alleged violations of human rights, particularly enforced disappearances […], and to prosecute, try and punish those responsible for such violations.” 205 The duties of a proper effective investigation prevail any domestic legal impediments as to evade the persistence of impunity.206 82. Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee, in relation to the inadmissibility of death certificates, underscored that by issuing these the State cannot bypass its duty to investigate the facts, which derives from the continuous nature of this obligation.207 83. The Human Rights Committee stated in Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (paragraph 7.3): “[T]he Committee observes that on 20 June 2009, the family was provided with Milhoud Ahmed Hussein Bashasha’s death certificate, without any explanation as to the cause or the exact place of his death or any information on any investigations undertaken by the State party. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the right to life enshrined in article 6 has been violated by the State party.”208 84. The Inter-American Court in Barrios Altos v. Peru found that the self-amnesty in relation to Amnesty Act Nos. 26479 and 26492 was incompatible with the duty to investigate and prosecute leading to the persistence of impunity. In the Castillo-Páez v. Peru case, the Inter-American Court held that an amnesty law, which impedes the identification of a perpetrator, did not evade the State’s responsibility from complying with the victim’s right to know.209 85. The Inter-American Court stated in Castillo-Páez v. Peru (paragraph 90): “In connection with the above-mentioned violations of the American Convention, the Court considers that the Peruvian State is obliged to investigate the events that produced them. Moreover, on the assumption that internal difficulties might prevent the identification of the individuals responsible for crimes of this kind, the victim’s family still have the right to know what happened to him and, if appropriate, where his remains are located. It is therefore incumbent on the State to use all the means at its disposal to satisfy these reasonable expectations.” 86. The Inter-American Court stated in Barrios Altos v. Peru (paragraph 41:) “[A]ll amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.” 87. Furthermore the Inter-American Court held that State authorities must not suppress information obtained through administrative procedures or from judicial authorities investigating an alleged enforced disappearance justifying these acts under the cover of national security.210 88. The Inter-American Court stated in Gomes-Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil (paragraph 202): “[T|he Court has also established that in cases of violations of human rights, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or pending procedures.” 205 206 207 208 209 210 36 Human Rights Committee, El Abani v. Algeria, communication No. 1640/2007 (2010), 26 July 2010, para. 9; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. Human Rights Committee, Laureano v. Peru, communication No. 540/1993, 16 April 1996, para. 10; Human Rights Committee, Benaziza v. Algeria (see footnote 205) para. 9.2. Human Rights Committee, Bashasha v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (see footnote 174) para.7.3; see Human Rights Committee, S.E. v. Argentina, communication No. 275/1988, 26 March 1990. Ibid. IACHR, Castillo-Páez v. Peru (see footnote 198) para. 90. IACHR, Gomes-Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil (see footnote 152) para. 202.