24 evident incompatibility with [certain] constitutional stipulations, [the mentioned legislative decree] cannot be applied, but this in no way is to disregard the constitutional recognition and ranking of the right to a reasonable time period.”44 In turn, in a case related to a massacre, the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia “[derogated] the acquittals” in favor of five defendants and ordered “to take the actions back to the investigation phase.” The Supreme court reminded that there is “the possibility to overturn a decision that is res judicata in nature, issued in proceedings concerning violations of human rights or serious infringements of International Humanitarian Law,” even in cases without new facts or evidence, and regardless of whether a judgment on merits, issued by an instance such as the Inter-American Court, exists or not. In said case, for the aforementioned Supreme Court, the declaration of the Inter-American Commission in its report on merits was sufficient, in which it concluded that “judicial and disciplinary instances abstained from collecting the appropriate evidence, they ruled against procedural reality, and committed other grave irregularities that prevented the identification and punishment of perpetrators,” since “without greater knowledge, it applied the principle of in dubio pro reo due to unsubstantial inconsistencies in [a] testimony” when the truth was that “judicial experience states that the assessment of evidence in such bloody events requires greater deliberation and care, since they are not commonplace, but rather, due to the degree of cruelty and atrocity, they are only generally known by those who were directly involved. Furthermore, the witnesses and surviving victims are subject to threats from the same criminal organizations.”45 50. In conclusion, both the jurisprudence of the Court as well as some decisions in comparative law make it possible to conclude that in the possible conflicts between the victims’ right to access justice and the defendant’s judicial guarantees there is a prima facie prevalence of the victims’ rights in cases of serious violations of human rights and even more so when there is impunity. Thus, it is necessary that the corresponding judicial authorities analyze the circumstances and specific context of each case in detail to avoid generating a disproportionate restriction of the victims’ rights. Therefore, for example, the Tribunal 51. 44 Cf. First Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, supra note 43, p. 18. Cf. Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Judgment of September 22, 2010 (Appeal for Review), approved through minutes No. 300, pages 81-82. 45