A/56/156 international measures must be taken ... with a view to securing jointly, in the interests of the victims of human rights violations, observance of the right to know and, by implication, the right to the truth, the right to justice and the right to reparation, without which there can be no effective remedy against the pernicious effects of impunity”. The Set of Principles further states that “even when intended to establish conditions conducive to a peace agreement or to foster national reconciliation, amnesty and other measures of clemency shall be kept within the following bounds: (a) the perpetrators of serious crimes under international law may not benefit from such measures until such time as the State has met” their “obligations to investigate violations, to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that they are prosecuted, tried and duly punished, to provide victims with effective remedies and reparation for the injuries suffered, and to take acts to prevent the recurrence of such violations”.20 28. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress the duty of States to bring to justice perpetrators of torture as an integral part of the victims’ right to reparation, as noted by Mr. Joinet, of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and the last independent expert of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Mr. M. Cherif Bassiouni, in their reports21 and in the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.22 In his final report, Mr. Bassiouni revised the basic principles and guidelines, holding that the victim’s right to a remedy encompasses (a) access to justice; (b) reparation for the harm suffered; and (c) access to factual information concerning the violations.23 He furthermore stated that “violations of international human rights and humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law carry the duty to prosecute persons alleged to have committed these violations, to punish perpetrators adjudged to have committed these violations, and to cooperate with and assist States and appropriate international judicial organs in the investigation and prosecution of these violations”.24 29. The Special Rapporteur further wishes to refer to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, 8 which, in its General Comment 20, of 3 April 1992, on the prohibition of torture, concluded that amnesties are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate such acts of torture; to guarantee freedom from such acts within their jurisdiction; and to ensure that they do not occur in future. In the case of Hugo Rodríguez v. Uruguay, the Committee reaffirmed its position that amnesties for gross violations of human rights are incompatible with the obligations of the State party under the Covenant and expressed concern that in adopting the amnesty law in question, the State party has contributed to an atmosphere of impunity which may undermine the democratic order and give rise to further human rights violations. The Special Rapporteur notes that, in its conclusions and recommendations following the review of the third periodic report of Peru, the Committee against Torture expressed concern about “the use of, in particular, the amnesty laws which preclude prosecution of alleged torturers who must, according to articles 4, 5 and 12 of the Convention, be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate”25 and recommends that “amnesty laws should exclude torture from their reach”.26 30. The Special Rapporteur notes the extensive jurisprudence developed by the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights on the question of amnesty legislation. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has condemned amnesty laws issued by democratic successor Governments in the name of reconciliation, even if approved by a plebiscite, and has held them to be in breach of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, in particular the duty of the State to respect and ensure rights recognized in the Convention (article 1(1)), the right to due process of law (article 8) and the right to an effective judicial remedy (article 25). The Commission held further that amnesty laws extinguishing both criminal and civil liability disregarded the legitimate rights of the victims’ next of kin to reparation and that such measures would do nothing to further reconciliation. The Commission held that, as regards countries that had not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights at the time of the perpetration of human rights violations subject to the amnesty laws, the violations were incompatible with article XVIII (right to a fair trial) and with the above-mentioned provisions of the American Convention.27 Finally, the Commission clarified that new democratic Governments bear responsibility for the human rights violations of previous (military)