76 however, as already noted, they have not been properly investigated and, in some cases, no investigation has even been carried out (supra paras. 218 to 241). 244. The Court considers that the failure to investigate forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, forced labor, torture and sexual violence in armed conflicts and/or within systematic patterns, such as those that occurred and were denounced in the instant case, constitutes a breach of the State’s obligations in relation to serious human rights violations, and contravenes non-derogable norms and generates obligations for the States, 304 such as the obligation to investigate and punish such practices, in accordance with the American Convention and, in this case, in light of the ICFDP, the ICPPT and the Convention of Belém do Pará. 245. Similarly, the Court recalls that Guatemala's National Reconciliation Law (LRN) itself establishes in article 8 305 that “[t]he extinction of criminal liability [for certain crimes committed during the internal armed conflict] referred to in this law shall not apply to the crimes of genocide, torture and forced disappearance, as well as those crimes that are not subject to statutes of limitations or that do not admit extinction of criminal responsibility, in accordance with domestic law or international treaties ratified by Guatemala.” 246. On this point, there is no evidence that the LRN has been applied in the proceedings initiated in the instant case. However, the State argued that, in the investigation and prosecution related to the facts of this case, the criminal definitions of forced disappearance and torture would not be applicable, since these offenses were not criminalized in its legislation at the time when the events took place. 247. In this regard, according to its extensive and consistent case law on the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish, the Court has established that amnesty provisions, statutes of limitations, and other purported exclusions of responsibility that in reality are a pretext to prevent the investigation of serious human rights violations, are inadmissible. 306 248. In particular, this Court has indicated that in its jurisprudence it has heard cases in which the initial failure to define the autonomous crime of forced disappearance of persons did not hinder the progress of criminal proceedings at the domestic level, and therefore did not result per se in a violation of the State’s treaty obligations (supra para. 136). This does not prevent the State from carrying out investigations based on the crime of forced disappearance in those cases in which the whereabouts of the disappeared person have not been determined or their remains identified by the date on which the criminalization of said crime entered into force in 1996. In such cases, the criminal conduct continues and, therefore, the criminal offense is applicable. The Court has already established that the application of the criminal definition of forced disappearance under the aforementioned assumptions does not violate the principle of legality, nor does it imply a retroactive application of the criminal law. 307 249. On the other hand, the representatives and the Commission alleged that the facts of the present case constitute acts of genocide, while Guatemala argued that said crime would not be applicable to the facts of the case, “given that the Guatemalan conflict did not originate as an inter-ethnic conflict.” Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 131. Available at: http://old.congreso.gob.gt/archivos/decretos/1996/gtdcx145-1996.pdf 306 Cf. 12 Guatemalan Cases. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2015, considering paragraph 145, and Case of the Workers of Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil, paras. 454 and 455. 307 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2013, considering paragraph 11, and 12 Guatemalan Cases. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2015, considering paragraph 149. 304 305