QQQslr views, requests for legislative amendments to the death penalty and requests for damages. The lnter-American Court of Human Rights states it bluntly: "The Court believes that if there appear new facts or evidence that make it possible to ascertain the identity of those responsible for human rights violations or for crimes against humanity, investigations can be reopened, even if the case ended in an acquittal with the authority of a final judgment, since the dictates of justice, the rights of the victims, and the spirit and the wording of the American Convention supersedes the protection of the non bis in idem principle."T The lnter-American Court added that "the non bis in idem principle, even if it is a human right recognized under Article 8.4 of the American Convention, is not an absolute right". The most striking fact remains the Respondent State's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the violation noted by the Committee. This alone would have justified a different decision by the Court. 14.The second reason is that it was dictated by the context. The conceptual and legal rigour of human rights was compelling. lt was necessary to consider, as did the Committee, that the facts in issue concerned an essential aspect of human rights. As was emphasized by the lnter-American Court of Human Rights in Rodriguez Velasquezs, relying on Article 4(1), which provides that: < Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law [...]. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life, as wellas Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights which guarantee the "right to life and physical integrity". The execution of the sentence which one of the competent organs of the international system (the HRC)e had just considered as improper should be considered by the other organs of the system. the Charter by failing to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to the Applicant's rights under Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter." 'lACHR, Almonacid Arellano and others v. Chill, (Preliminary objections, substance, reparations, fees and costs), 26 September 2006, S 154 ef seq., The lnter-American Court further notes: "The State cannot, therefore, rely on lhe non bis in idem principle to avoid complying with the order of the Court." $ 155 IACHR, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, 26 June 1987; the merits, 29 J uly 1988, Case No. 7920, lnter-Am. CHR, Res. No.22186, OEA/Ser. LA//|1.61, Doc.44: l.L.M.' 1989' 294 The HRC stated in its communication: < the automatic imposition of the death penalty in the author's case, by virtue of Section 46 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, violated the author's rights under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The Committee also reminds the State party that by becoming a party to the Covenant it undertook to adopt legislative measures in order to fulfil its legal obligations.> $ I 7.3. 5