55 147. Even though there was a domestic judicial proceeding, in which an alleged mastermind of the facts was identified, at the time the instant Judgment is issued, more than thirteen years after the facts took place, he has not been punished as the person liable, even though he continues filing briefs through his attorney in the case that is open in this regard, and the possible existence of other principals or persons liable has not been investigated. 148. The above has led to a situation of grave impunity. In this regard, the Court deems that impunity is the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact that the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.116 149. During the public hearing (supra para. 28), the agent of the State expressed that the alleged mastermind of the facts took several steps in the proceeding against him, seeking exclusion of his liability through provisions such as amnesty laws and others and, specifically, he seeks to benefit from the statute of limitations that might apply in the case against him for the facts of the instant case. 150. Regarding to the possibility of the case pending under domestic venue being barred by the statute of limitations, the Court calls to mind what it stated in the Bulacio vs. Argentina case, regarding the inadmissibility of provisions regarding the statute of limitations or any other obstacle of domestic law that seeks to impede investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations.117 The Court deems that the general obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention require that the States Party promptly adopt all types of provisions for no one to be denied the right to judicial protection,118 set forth in 116 Case of the “Panel Blanca”(Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 99, para. 173; see Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 5, para. 126; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, paras. 156 and 210; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 120; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, paras. 143 and 185; Case of Las Palmeras. Reparations, supra note 17, para. 53.a); Case of the Caracazo. Reparations, supra note 17, paras. 116 and 117; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 101; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 64; Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 56; Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations, supra note 108, para. 69; Case of Cesti Hurtado. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 63; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 100; Case of the “Panel Blanca”(Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 201; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 19, para. 186; Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 68, para. 123; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 68, para. 211; Case of Blake. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 64; Case of Castillo Páez. Reparations, supra note 101, para. 107; and Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 170. 117 See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 116; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 106; Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Barrios Altos. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 American Convention Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 15; and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana. Order on Compliance with Judgment of November 27, 2003, Whereas 9. 118 43. See Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 116; and Case of Barrios Altos, supra note 117, para.