In each particular case, taking into account the specific arguments concerning the evidence, the non-applicability of the statute of limitations at a certain moment may have the purpose of preventing the State from evading accountability for the arbitrary acts committed by its own officials in such contexts 258 and thus avoiding their repetition. 259 263. The Court has affirmed, consistently and repeatedly, that application of the statute of limitations is inadmissible in cases of torture, murders committed in a context of massive and systematic violations of human rights, and forced disappearances, 260 because such conducts contravene non-derogable rights and obligations recognized by international human rights law. 264. Specifically, with regard to crimes against humanity, “no rule on statute of limitations with respect to international crimes, including crimes against humanity, was established in the Nürnberg or the Tokyo Charters, or in the constituent instruments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or the Special Court for Sierra Leon. In contrast, Control Council Law No. 10, adopted in December 1945 by the Allied Control Council for Germany to ensure the continued prosecution of alleged offenders, provided that in any trial or prosecution for crimes against humanity (as well as war crimes and crimes against the peace) ‘the accused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute of limitation in respect to the period from 30 January 1933 to 1 July 1945.’” 261 In addition, in 1967, the United Nations General Assembly noted that “the application to war crimes and crimes against humanity of the rule of municipal law relating to the period of limitation for ordinary crimes is a serious concern to world public opinion, since it prevents the prosecution and punishment of persons responsible for those crimes.” 262 The following year, the States adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, which recognized the evolution of international law on this matter and determined that “statutory or other limitations shall not apply to the prosecution and punishment of” crimes against humanity. 263 In addition, the Rome Statute applied on certain conditions and longer terms intended to give extended life to the State’s right to prosecute.” Separate opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez with regard to the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 29. 258 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Resolution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, considerandum 40. 259 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo v. Ecuador. Merits, para. 111; Case of Vera and otra v. Ecuador, para. 117. See, inter alia, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 150, 151 and 152; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 167; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 207; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 171; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, para. 117, and Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, para. 454. 260 261 UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July4 August 2017). A/72/10, commentary 34 on article 6 of the Draft articles on crimes against humanity, p. 70, citing Control Council Law No. 10 on Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, art. II, para. 5; UN. General Assembly. Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Resolution 2338 (XXII), December 18, 1967. 262 UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July4 August 2017). A/72/10, commentary 35 on article 6 of the Draft articles on crimes against humanity, p. 70, citing UN. General Assembly. Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Resolution 2338 (XXII), December 18, 1967; see also Resolution 2712 (XXV) of December 15, 1970 (available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2712(XXV)), and Resolution 2840 (XXVI) of December 18, 1971 (available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2840(XXVI)). 263 UN. General Assembly. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, Resolutión 2391(XXIII), November 26, 1968, Article IV. Available at https://undocs.org/en/ a/res/2391(XXIII). 66