9 This obligation implies the duty of the State Parties to the Convention to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all structures through which public power is exercised, in such a manner as to be capable of legally ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights.10 13. That the obligation to investigate may not be performed rashly; rather, it must be conducted in accordance with the standards set by international laws and precedents, according to which investigations should be prompt, thorough, impartial and independent.11 14. That the State has contributed information regarding the processes and accusations in progress to investigate the facts that generated the violations established in the Judgments and of this manner to identify and, in its case, sanction those responsible for the same. At the same time, the Court has taken note of the information referred to in a special process, a so-called “agreement of efficient collaboration,” signed between the State and two of the persons involved in the violations declared in the Judgment, whose objective also would be oriented toward the determination of responsibilities and reparations linked with this case. 15. That, nevertheless, this Tribunal observes that more than 8 years have passed since it issued its Judgments and that the State has not clarified the totality of the facts and determined the corresponding responsibilities for the violations declared in the present case, a situation that maintains impunity and has generated the corresponding plea and application of the exception of statute of limitations regarding the three concrete criminal actions (supra Considering 8.a, 8.c and 8.d). In the specific case of the process No. 13602003, regarding Mr. Huamán del Solar, the representatives alleged that the admission of the exception of statute of limitations resulted as “surprising,” in the manner that it had been generated by the delays in the fulfillment of the time frames promoted by the accused himself (supra Considering 9.c). 16. The Court considers it pertinent to reiterate its consistent case law in this regard and remind the State that “in criminal matters, the statute of limitations determines the extinction of the punitive intention owing to the passage of time and, in general, limits the punitive power of the State to prosecute the unlawful conduct and punish the perpetrators.”12 Therefore, the statute of limitations, in certain cases, permits the accused to oppose a criminal prosecution indefinitely or permanently, operating this way as punishment to the organs in charge of the criminal prosecution facing the delay that may fall in the execution of their duties. 17. That if then the statute of limitations is a guarantee of due process that must be 10 Cf. Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 166; Bamaca Velasquez, supra note 8, considering twenty-fourth, and Tiu Tojin, supra note 8, paragraph 69. 11 12 Cf. Bamaca Velasquez, supra note 8, considering thirtieth. Cf. Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 41; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, considering thirteenth, and Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparation and Cost. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, paragraph 111.