41 Furthermore, there is a list that mentions Renato Ticona as one of the disappeared persons. Moreover, on January 8, 2008, a court delivered a condemnatory judgment against the alleged responsable for the forced disappearance of Mr. Ticona Estrada. Nevertheless, the writs of cassation filed by the convicted are still pending resolution; therefore, such decision has no authority of a final judgment. Nevertheless, the Court truly values the recent progress made in the criminal proceedings and considers that the State should continue with the processing of that case, so that, as soon as possible, there is a final judgment that can be effectively executed, in order to prevent conditions of impunity for this type of acts from being repeated.122 145. The Court notes that within the criminal procedure, the judicial authority has ordered, on several occassions, personal precautionary measures, among which, arrest warrants of the convicted people in the criminal judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which have not been executed. Said judicial orders have been complied with, so that should said judgments be uphold, those who are responsible for the facts, cannot escape from justice. Besides, this Court observes that it does not spring from the case file of this case that the State has taken effective steps to apprehend said people, that according to witnesses live and freely circulate in Oruro, which have not been objected by the State. 146. Based on the foregoing, as well as the case- law of this Tribunal,123 the Court orders the State to effectively carry out the criminal proceedings in process and any future proceedings in order to determine the corresponding responsibilities for the facts of the case and, if applicable, to apply the appropriate legal provisions and in this way, prevent the repetition of facts like the ones of the instant case. 147. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the Constitucional Tribunal of Bolivia has been sound to declare that the international treaties on human rights are part of a constitutional bloc,124 as well as the case-law derived from the Inter-American system for the Protection of Human Rights that is binding on the domestic courts of Bolivia.125 In this sense, said Constitucional Tribunal has considered that “the illegal deprivation of liberty […] is an ongoing crime [and] accordingly, the counting of such crimes should be done from the definite ending date of the commission of such crime.”126 This Court considers that the State may not invoke any domestic law or provision to exonerate itself from the obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the facts committed against Mr. Ticona Estrada. Additionally, considering that this case deals with serious human rights violations, the State may not invoke the statute of limitations or any other principle that 122 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 9, para. 156; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 70, para. 124; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 116. 123 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Perú. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006; Series C No. 147, para. 199; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 245; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 175. 124 Cf. Constitutional Judgments 1494/2003-R of October 22, 2003 0102/2003 of November 4, 2003, 1662/2003-R of November 17, 2003, 1494/2004-R of September 16, 2004 and 0095/01 of December 21, 2001 (documents presented by the State during the public hearing, p. 5068, 5076, 5111, 5125 and 5137). 125 Cf. Constitutional Judgment 0664/2004-R of May 6, 2004 (documents presented by the State during the public hearing, p.5096). 126 Cf. Constitutional Judgment 1190/2001-R (documentation presented by the State during the public hearing, p. 5215 to 5216).