ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State apparatus, are also bound to it, obligating them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished.”17 That is, that the statute of limitations yields to the rights of victims when there is an obstruction of the obligation to identify, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of a crime. 41. In its previous jurisprudence the Court has stated, referring to the principle of ne bis in idem, that it is not applicable when: i) the actions of the court that heard the case and decided to dismiss or acquit the person responsible for a violation of human rights or international law were intended to shield the accused from criminal responsibility; ii) the proceeding was not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with due process, or iii) there was no real intention of placing the perpetrator in the hands of justice. A judgment declared which involves any of the foregoing circumstances produces an “apparent” or “fraudulent” res judicata.”18 Thus, the authority of res judicata of a decision that affects the rights of individuals protected by the Convention and shows that there are grounds for questioning that which is res judicata may possibly be discussed before this Court.19 42. The information provided by the parties in this case only allows the Court to note that in the two aforementioned proceedings, the statute of limitations was declared to have run its course. The Court does not have elements to know if the proceedings ran the statute of limitations due to the reasons described in the preceding paragraphs. In view of the foregoing, it is imperative that the State submit organized, detailed, complete, and updated information on the causes that led to the opposition and application of the statute of limitation in the two criminal cases mentioned, referring to, if applicable, the copies of the relevant parts of case files. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, In the exercise of its powers of supervision of compliance with its decisions and in conformity with Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67, and 68(1) of the American Convention on Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 116; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. V. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 01, 2009, Considering clause fourteen, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering clause seventeen. 17 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 15, para. 176, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 15, para. 193. 18 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 16, para. 131; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile, supra note 17, para. 154, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 27, 2010, Considering clause fourteen. 19 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo V. Nicaragua. Request for Review of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Order of the Court of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, paras. 10 to 12; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile, supra note 17, para. 154. 13