5 them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished.”12 That is to say, the rights of victims prevail over the prescription guarantee when situations arise that obstruct the obligation to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible for a crime. 14. Referring to the principle of ne bis in idem, in its jurisprudence the Court has indicated that it is not applicable when: i) the actions of the court that heard the case, and decided to dismiss it or absolve the person responsible for a violation of human rights or of international law, intended to shield the accused from his/her criminal liability; ii) the procedure was not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the guarantee of due process, or iii) there was no real intention to bring the responsible to justice. A judgment delivered in such circumstances produces an “apparent” or “fraudulent”13 final decision. Therefore, the authority of a final judgment can be discussed before this Court when it affects the rights of individuals protected by the Convention and it is proven that there are grounds to question the final judgment.14 In another case against Peru, this Court declared that “[i]f the proceedings upon which the judgment rests have serious defects that strip them of the efficacy they must have under normal circumstances, then the judgment will not stand.”15 15. The Court observes that the State has not submitted information regarding progress with compliance with this obligation. In this regard, the Court reiterates to the State the request to submit organized, detailed, complete, and up-to-date information on the causes that led to the objection and application of the prescription period in three of the criminal actions related to this case, as cited in the Order to Monitor Compliance with Judgment of the Court of November 24, 2009 (supra Having Seen 4). Furthermore, if necessary, the Court asked the State to submit copies of the relevant parts of the corresponding files. The Court also deems it necessary for the State to provide organized, detailed, complete, and updated information on the steps taken and the progress in each of the proceedings concerning the instant case, including information about the “agreement for efficient collaboration.” * * * 16. Regarding the need to facilitate conditions that allow Baruch Ivcher Bronstein to take the steps necessary to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as a majority shareholder of CLRSA, as was the case until August 1, 1997, in compliance with domestic legislation (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment), through the brief of July 23, 2010, 12 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Bulacio, supra note 11, Considering Clause eighteen, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause seventeen. 13 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 131; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 153, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause eighteen. 14 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Request for Review of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, para. 10 to 12; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 12, para. 154, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause eighteen. 15 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 219.