processing of an action for the sole reason that its application could lead to the issuance of an acquittal”; e) to which, “so long as there is no suspicion that the modification of the legal code of any legal institution[, such as that of the statute of limitation in a criminal action of the State,] is due solely to the purpose of granting impunity to persons charged with serious violations of human rights, there is no reason for not applying it to specific cases”; f) while this "leaves open the issue regarding the possible international responsibility of the State if it has failed to investigate or punish due to inactivity, delay, or any other fault attributable to its bodies[,] what is not acceptable is that the criminal prosecution contra legem of the accused continues to avoid the State’s possible international condemnation.” 25. The representative said he did not know “if the legal claims that gave rise to the instant case are being investigated.” The representative highlighted that the decision of the Supreme Court that upheld the statute of limitations in the criminal action was issued “after the notification of the [J]udgment of the Inter-American Court.” In this regard, he observed that "[i]t is clear that with the decision of the Supreme Court [...] the State seeks to justify the decision not to investigate crimes committed by its officials,” as “most involved and/or charged in the various judicial proceedings continue today in their roles as State officials.” He noted that with the information provided by the State “it can be seen that a significant length of time remains from obtaining the required investigation of the charges, as well as identifying those responsible for said charges.” In addition, he stressed that the impunity of the perpetrators and lack of justice, 22 years after the events, has had a "devastating" impact in the life of the victim and family members. Upon noting that the above ruling "seeks to encompass all of the initiated proceedings, as well as all of those responsible for the facts denounced given that such benefit favors the codefendants, the police, [...] and each and every one of the judicial and administrative officials of the State who were in one way or another involved in the process of covering up the crimes they claimed to be investigating.” In this regard, he indicated other proceedings, presumably initiated due to the timing of the facts of this case, for which the obligation of the State remains. Among these proceedings, he mentioned causes of action that remain open for crimes of threat committed by one of the charged police23 and for the disappearance and destruction of evidence, including the “disappearance of original and notarized documentation.” 24 26. The Commission said that “it deeply regret[ed]” the declaration of the statute of limitations of the investigation into the torture.” It noted that the obligation to investigate is linked to the right of victims, their family members, and society to know the truth of what happened and to the State's obligation to prevent and combat impunity. It stressed that the fulfillment of this obligation should not be impeded by the invocation of any norm of law, one of which is the statute of limitations. It therefore considered that "the State of Argentina must complete a real and effective investigation in order to identify and punish those responsible for violations [...] in this case.” It also noted that “it expect[ed] the State to, in its next report, provide updated information on the reaction of the Supreme Court regarding 23 The representative alluded to “case No. 25156 before the Court of Instruction [Examining Court] No. 23” and la “case No. 57144 before the Court of Instruction [Examining Court] No. 30” (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, tome I, folios 275 and 276). 24 Case No. 61720 and Case No. 6269/96 before the Court of Instruction [Examining Court] No. 13 (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, tome I, folios 275 and 276). 12