themselves and thereby imply the corresponding degree of severity, the procedural instance would not follow. This is not in-line with the criteria specified by the Court regarding the inapplicability of the statute of limitations (supra para. 117). 119. In regard to point c), the Court reiterates that which has been indicated previously in this Judgment, (supra para. 93) in the sense that it is not for the Court to determine individual responsibilities, whose determination is a matter for domestic criminal courts or other international tribunals, but rather to know the facts brought to its attention and characterize their nature in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction. Precisely because of the series of events and level of involvement of various authorities, it is not possible to establish with certainty the corresponding responsibility in this international process, to which domestic investigations must be carried out, it is not enough for this Court to determine that in this case the statute of limitations was inapplicable. 120. In regard to point d), the Court deems that, given the nature of this case, the fact that the State has not carried out any type of investigation to date, as has been established in this Judgment, is not enough to determine that the statute of limitations should not apply. 121. Finally, in regard to the point e), the Court considered that although the Inter-American Commission made reference to the possibility of carrying out a judgment of consideration, it did not develop or apply its argument in this case. Similarly, the Court recalls that the case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala is about the enforced disappearance of Efraín Bamaca Velasquez, which is considered by this Court as a serious violation of human rights. Therefore, the aforementioned Order does not apply to this case as indicated by the Commission. 122. In light of the aforementioned, and in consideration of the Court’s repeated and most recent jurisprudence, the Court deems that it is not able to determine the inapplicability of the criminal statute of limitations to the facts of the present case that have been duly proven and established in this Judgment. 123. Notwithstanding, the Court considers that due to the right of the mother and family to know what exactly happened Mr. Vera Vera, the State must satisfy, in some manner, as a complementary measure of satisfaction to that established in the Judgment, said minimum expectation, reporting to the Court on the measures taken and results achieved. Upon receiving the corresponding comments of the Inter-American Commission and the representative, the Court may order the publication of such results. C. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition C.1. Publication of the relevant Judgment and public dissemination parts of the present 124. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to “publish the relevant parts of the [J]udgment […] rendered by the Court.” On its behalf, 47