A/56/156 regimes, in accordance with the principle of the State’s continuing responsibility in international law, and hence for the non-revocation of a self-amnesty law, promulgated by a previous military dictatorship.28 31. The Special Rapporteur would like to draw the attention of the General Assembly to a recent judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Caso Barrios Altos, Chumbipuma Aguirre y otros v. Perú (14 March 2001). The Court held that amnesty provisions, prescription and the exclusion of responsibility which have the effect of impeding the investigation and punishment of those responsible for grave violations of human rights, such as torture, summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearances, are prohibited as contravening human rights of a non-derogable nature recognized by international human rights law. The Court considered the laws in question to be in violation of the duty on the State to give domestic legal effect to the rights contained in the Convention (article 2). The Court held further that the self-amnesty laws lead to the victims’ defencelessness and to the perpetuation of impunity, and, for this reason, were manifestly incompatible with the letter and spirit of the Convention. The Court concluded by stating that as a consequence of the manifest incompatibility of the self-amnesty laws with the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, the laws concerned have no legal effect and may not continue representing an obstacle to the investigation of the facts of the case, nor for the identification and punishment of those responsible. 32. The Special Rapporteur would also like to draw the attention of the General Assembly to the fact that, in conjunction with the Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and on the independence of judges and lawyers, and with the Chairman of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, he had sent a communication to the Government of Peru regarding the amnesty laws promulgated in June and July 1995. The Special Rapporteurs considered, inter alia, that those laws denied the right to an effective remedy for victims of human rights violations and, therefore, were contrary to the spirit of various international human rights instruments.29 33. In the light of the consistent international jurisprudence suggesting that the prohibition of amnesties leading to impunity for serious human rights has become a rule of customary international law, the Special Rapporteur expresses his opposition to the passing, application and non-revocation of amnesty laws (including laws in the name of national reconciliation, the consolidation of democracy and peace, and respect for human rights), which prevent torturers from being brought to justice and hence contribute to a culture of impunity. As before, he calls on States to refrain from granting or acquiescing in impunity at the national level, inter alia, by the granting of amnesties, such impunity itself constituting a violation of international law. E. Prevention and transparency 34. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate30 that one of the main factors constituting a condition of impunity is the prevalence of the opportunity to commit the crime of torture in the first place. This is why international standards require that the length of incommunicado detention be restricted to hours rather than days, that lawyers, physicians and family members have prompt access to detainees, and that detainees have early access to the judicial system. As stated on several occasions, the Special Rapporteur also recommends external supervision of all places of detention by independent officials, such as judges, prosecutors, ombudsmen and national or human rights commissions, and by civil society. He also recommends the video-recording of interrogation sessions and the presence of the person’s lawyer at such sessions, and supports monitoring by independent monitoring institutions, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Committee on the Prevention of Torture under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the mechanism contemplated by the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, should it be adopted with at least the powers enjoyed by the two mechanisms referred to above. 35. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that there needs to be a radical transformation of assumptions in international society about the nature of deprivation of liberty. The basic paradigm, taken for granted over at least a century, is that prisons, police stations and the like are closed and secret places, with activities inside hidden from public view. The international standards referred to are conceived of as often unwelcome 9