them prohibited because they violated non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law, are inadmissible.” 163 153. However, regarding the State’s international responsibility based on Decree Law No. 2,191, which was established in the decision in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, it should be recalled that, in relation to the facts of that case, the Court noted that this norm had been applied in 1997 and 1998, preventing the continuation of criminal proceedings. 164 The Court also noted that, “[i]n recent years, [prior to September 2006,] the Chilean Judiciary had not applied Decree Law No. 2,191 in several cases.” 165 This is consequent with the observation of the representatives in this case in their pleadings and motions brief, when they stated that, from 1998 to 2006, Decree Law No. 2,191 “began to be used less frequently.” 154. After the State had become aware of the acts of torture committed against Mr. García Lucero, the continued existence of Decree Law No. 2,191 could constitute an obstacle to the opening of an investigation. However, the body of evidence does not reveal probative elements of acts that denote the specific application or proved impact of Decree Law No. 2,191 on the investigation of the facts of this case. Therefore, it has not been proved that the mere existence of Decree Law No. 2.191 was the cause of the failure to open an investigation into what happened in the case of Mr. García Lucero prior to October 7, 2011; nor has it been proved that, to date, it has affected the evolution of the investigation opened on that date. In any case, it should be stressed that, based on the findings made in the judgment in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al., the Court established that “in view of its nature, Decree Law No. 2,191 lacks legal effects and cannot continue representing an obstacle to the investigation of the facts that constitute this case, or to the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor can it have the same or a similar impact on other cases of violations of rights recognized in the American Convention that occurred in Chile. 166 Despite recalling its findings in the said judgment, in the instant case, the Court does not find it appropriate to rule on the State’s international responsibility as a result of the existence of Decree Law No. 2,191. C.2.2) Regarding article 15 of Law No. 19,992 155. The representatives provided the text of article 15 of Law No. 19,992 and neither the State nor the Commission contested this. 167 The Court notes that the representatives affirmed that article 15 of Law No. 19,992 constitutes one of the “structural obstacles in Chile’s legal system that prevents the successful completion of investigation, prosecution, punishment, and due reparation.” The Court notes, on the one hand, that the Commission did not refer to this article in its Merits Report and, on the other hand, that the State contested the questioning of this article and considered that it was inadmissible to declare any violation based on the representatives’ arguments. 163 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 112. See also Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 41. 164 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, paras. 82.20 and 82.21. 165 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, paras. 82.25. 166 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 119. 167 The text states “the documents, testimony and background information provided to the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture by the victims is confidential […]. That confidentiality […] shall be maintained for 50 years […]. While the confidentiality established in this article is in force, no persons, groups of persons, authority or judge shall have access to the items indicated in the first paragraph of this article, without prejudice to the personal right of the owners of the documents, reports, statements and testimony included in them to publicize them or provide them to third parties of their own volition.” 48