was in fact the delay in the investigations into the facts by the State which led to the case being brought before the Inter-American System, which is why the State cannot uphold the argument that it is unable to investigate such facts. The representatives also recalled that the State must enforce the provisions of the Convention and abide by its international obligations. The Judiciary is part of the State and, therefore, must comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court. The representatives pointed out that, faced with the supposed statute of limitations, the State did not seek alternatives to circumvent this alleged impediment, as Argentina or Peru did in certain cases. Moreover, although the State is required to comply with the criminal investigation, it could show its good faith by proposing alternative forms of investigating and identifying those responsible for the injury; although these actions would not literally comply with the Court’s decision, they would demonstrate the State’s willingness to find another way to fulfill the provisions of the Judgment. 15. The Commission noted that the statute of limitations had already expired prior to the Judgment and that even so the Court expressly ordered the State to investigate the facts. It considered that “the State's argument that it is unable to comply with its conventional obligation based on the amount of time elapsed without an action having been filed at the domestic level is not valid”. It also pointed out that the case was brought before the Court because of a lack of justice at the domestic level and that, as a general legal principle, no party can argue in its favor something that was caused by its own action or negligence. The Commission noted that the State did not present information showing progress in complying with this point of the Judgment. 16. The Inter-American Court, in the first place, recalls that during the Merits procedure, the parties did not inform the Court of the possible expiry of the criminal action; they only referred to the five-year statute of limitations in the administrative sphere.6 Similarly, the Court determined that the State should investigate the facts surrounding the dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations: In this case, the Court found that a violation of Articles 8 and 25 has been proved as regards the criminal investigation into the dissemination of telephone conversations conducted against the former Secretary of Security (supra para. 204). Moreover, the Court also found it proved that the State did not investigate the handing over and dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations to one of the media, and did not establish the criminal responsibility for this act (supra para. 205). Regarding the handing over and dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations, in accordance with the criteria established in the Court’s case-law, the State must investigate the facts and take the necessary measures. Also, regarding the other violations found, the Court considers that this Judgment, its publication and the compensation for the pecuniary damage are sufficient measures of reparation. 7 17. In its report, the State justified the absence of the investigation ordered in Operative Paragraph 9 of the Judgment based on the expiry of the criminal action, since the applicable definition contained in Article 10 of Act No. 9.296/96 stipulates a penalty of two to four years, and Article 109, IV of the Criminal Code of Brazil, establishes a statute of limitations of eight years for crimes that carry a maximum penalty of four years.8 Therefore, the criminal action with regard to the facts of the 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C Nº. 200, para. 245 and 246. 7 Cf. Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 247. 8 Law No. 9.296/96, of July 24, 1996: Art. 10 - Constitui crime realizar interceptação de comunicações telefônicas, de informática ou 5