Justice of Lima, by order of July 27, 2007. 14 Thus, the State said that “it is unable [to act] as it [has] lost its power to punish.” It added that “considering that the injured party claims that the facts [...] took place during the days of her arrest [,]that is from February 06 to 26 1993, [this led to] a combination of crimes,” applying the third paragraph of Article 80 of the Penal Code which states that “[t]he actions [run the course of the statute of limitations] after a period equal to the maximum for the most serious offense runs its course,” which in this case is that of severe bodily harm, at 12 years. Therefore, from February 1993 to 2007, 15 years and 5 months had passed, “running past the statute of limitations.” 37. Mrs. Loayza Tamayo said the State “has failed to comply” with this measure because on July 27, 2007, on the legal proceedings concerning the case, “the criminal action was declared extinguished due to the statute of limitations.” She noted that “[t]he information that has been brought to the attention of the Court [...] by the State” on this point, refers to events that pre-date the hearing on monitoring of compliance of the case and to allegations made by it on that occasion. She added that “the delay itself of the [S]tate in the investigation, identification, and prosecution of those responsible, serves as justification for not punishing those officers, who remain in their position, those of which have also even been promoted.” 38. The Commission considered that “the State […] must complete a real and effective investigation in order to identify and punish those persons responsible for the violations determined by this Court in [the J]udgment.” Moreover, it requested that the State “refer to the irregularities mentioned by the [victim], according to which over time would be attributable to authorities of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial authorities that heard the case, among other aspects of the process.” 39. The Court notes that it has been more than twelve years since it issued its Judgment in this case without the State clarifying all the relevant facts and determining the responsibility for the violations declared, a situation which remains in impunity and which has generated the corresponding invocation and application of the exception of the statute of limitations of two specific criminal actions. 40. In this regard, this Court recalls that although the statute of limitations should be duly observed by the judge for all accused of a crime, 15 the invocation and application of it is unacceptable when it has been clearly proven that the passage of time has been determined by procedural actions or omissions, in bad faith or negligence, to encourage or allow impunity. Thus, the Court reiterates what it has noted on other occasions, in that “[t]he right to effective judicial protection requires [...] the judges to direct the process so as to prevent undue delays and obstruction which will lead to impunity, thereby agitating the judicial protection of human rights.”16 The Court also noted that “when a State has 14 Judgment of the Third Criminal Chamber for Inmate Freedom of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (Case file No 547-06) of July 27, 2007. (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VIII, folio 2621 to 2626). 15 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 171, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 225 16 Cf. Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paras. 115; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. 12