67 conduct and to sanction its authors.245 Still, in certain circumstances, international law considers statutes of limitations to be inadmissible and inapplicable,246 as well as amnesty laws and the establishment of exemptions of responsibility,247 in order to maintain in force the punitive power of the State on conducts that, because of their seriousness and to avoid their repetition, need to be repressed. 208. In the present case, this Court finds that, independently of whether or not a conduct is determined as a crime against humanity by a domestic court, to analyze the application of the statute of limitations to conducts such as torture or murder committed within a political and social context of massive and systematic human rights violations, as it has already been established in this Judgment and recognized by the State, the special duty of the State, regarding such conducts, to carry out necessary investigations and determine those responsible so that these crimes do not remain in impunity should be taken into account. 209. In this regard, the Court recognizes the decision of the Second Criminal Chamber regarding the application of the crime of forced disappearance. Nevertheless, given the remaining impunity of other responsibilities in Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas murder and torture of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Pena, this Court considers that the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 210. Likewise, the Court recalls that, as it has been mentioned in this Judgment, given the facts and context in which they occurred, it is reasonable to assume that there remain other perpetrators in the present case. In this sense, the State’s responsibility to continue the investigation and to determine the corresponding criminal responsibility persists.” In the investigations and in the criminal proceedings that might be initiated in this respect, if applicable, and in addition to other crimes that may be applicable, the crime of forced disappearance of persons should also be considered, pursuant to Bolivian legislation and the jurisprudence of this Court. 211. Moreover, given that, according to that established in this Judgment, the forced disappearance of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas formally ceased in 2008 (supra para. 92), the aforementioned criminal codification is applicable, from a criminal law perspective, given that it was executed from 2006, year in which such crime was classified within Bolivian legislation, and until 2008. The Tribunal notes, as it had already done it in this Judgment (supra paras. 161, 203, 204 and 206) that the facts happened to Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas had not been formally investigated, and that in the domestic criminal proceeding, only some responsibilities have been determined regarding the facts of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña, and not regarding his son Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. In this sense, the State has the duty to impel the corresponding criminal investigation of the forced disappearance of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, withtout detriment to other crimes that may be appropriate [to investigate], according to Bolivian legislation and that mentioned by the Court in this Judgment, and it must ensure that, in the criminal proceedings that may be initiated, the crime of forced disappearance of persons and the consequences established by the domestic law are 245 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 111. 246 247 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador., supra nota 245, para. 111. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75. paras. 41; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 182, and Case of “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 129.