8 was applied to that specific case.” It added that, pursuant to the precedents of the Court “domestic law obstacles or statutes of limitations hindering or barring the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations are inadmissible”. Finally, it concluded that, under the terms of the judgment, “the State must continue with the relevant investigations into the circumstances of the murder of Mr. García Prieto, as well as of the threats and harassment” endured by his parents. 23. The representatives stated that the Judgment was clear about the obligation of the State to continue with the investigations related to the murder of Mr. García-Prieto. They pointed out that the State raised issues of fact and law that had already been heard and ruled on by the Court. Therefore, they noted that the State “attempts to use the request for interpretation as a means to challenge the [J]udgment”. The representatives added that “in the event that the Court decides to allow the question [raised by] the State, it should be noted that [the latter…] may not invoke domestic law obstacles to justify failure to fulfill its international obligations”. Consequently, the representatives maintained that, given that the Court ordered the State to investigate the facts of the instant case, the State may not rely on the statute of limitations to circumvent said obligation. 24. The Court finds that the Judgment on the Merits is clear in providing in paragraphs 193, 194 and 195 that the State must conclude the investigation, for which purposes, it must resort to all means available to further such investigation and all related proceedings, and thus prevent repetition of events such as those in the instant case. Although, the Court made no finding as to the statute of limitations issue since, as clearly stated in paragraph 197 of the Judgment, it held that in prosecutor’s record No. 34-00-03 related to the investigation of the potential participation of masterminds in the murder of Mr. García Prieto and the identification of a potential third individual that may have been involved in the incidents, there was no evidence to establish the application of the statute of limitations to the case. The Court restates that it cannot rule on that issue until the application of the statute of limitations is confirmed by the relevant authority. Therefore, this issue may be examined at the judgment compliance monitoring stage, if appropriate. 25. Consequently, the third question raised by the State (supra para. 21) is held to be inadmissible by the Court. VII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 26. Therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 29(3)