13 committed against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides have not been identified or punished. 16. In this regard, the State, the Commission and the representatives reported that on November 7, 2003, the Office of the Third Provincial Criminal Prosecutor of Lima issued a resolution wherein it declared that “there are no grounds for bringing criminal action for the crimes of coercion, abuse of authority, battery and torture committed against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides owing to the fact that such criminal action is now statute-barred. The case relating to complaint No. 546-2000 is therefore definitively closed.” The State pointed out that the crimes of coercion, abuse of authority and battery were statute-barred since the maximum penalty they carry is two years’ imprisonment. It added that “for purposes of statutory limitations, the calculation is made as of the date of the commission of the crimes, but not from the date of the Court’s judgment [on the merits], and certainly not from the date of the judgment on reparations (supra Having Seen 8(a)). 17. In its case law, the Court has held that the State must guarantee that those responsible for the facts in a case are investigated, prosecuted and punished in domestic court proceedings; it has held further that amnesties, time-barring and the establishment of circumstances under which there would be no criminal liability should be avoided, as should measures whose purpose is to prevent criminal prosecution or void the effects of a conviction.5 The Court’s reasoning is consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Convention and with general principles of law; one such principle is pacta sunt servanda, which requires that the provisions of a treaty will have the corresponding effet utile in the States Parties’ domestic laws.6 18. It would be illogical for a criminal prosecution and the statute of limitations to run simultaneously and the consequences would be utterly unacceptable. To achieve the object and purpose of the American Convention, the time lapsed while international proceedings are pending must not be counted for purposes of extinguishment of criminal prosecution. Otherwise, the Commission and the Court would be exercising their jurisdiction in a vacuum and those responsible for crimes would go unpunished, which is utterly unacceptable. The Court has held that: the statute of limitations is suspended while a case is pending before a body of the interAmerican system for protection of human rights […] Moreover, if the time elapsed while a case is being heard by the inter-American system were taken into account for purposes of extinguishment, this would assign the international proceeding a consequence radically opposed to its intention: rather than promoting justice, it would bring with it impunity of those responsible for the violation.7 19. In the cas d'espece, the crimes committed against Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides occurred between February 6, 1993 and June 25, 1997. The petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission on April 18, 1994; on August 24 of that year, the Commission sent the State the pertinent parts of the petition; the application was submitted to the Court on August 8, 1996, and the Court delivered 5 Cf., inter alia, Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C no. 114, para. 259; Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 2, para. 232, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 262. 6 Cf., inter alia “Juvenile Detention Center” Case, Supra note 2, para. 205; Case of the GómezPaquiyauri Brothers. Supra note 2, para. 151, and Case of Baena-Ricardo et al.. Competence, Supra note 2, para. 61. 7 Case of Las Palmeras. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 69.