against humanity is a jus cogens rule, and the punishment of such crimes is obligatory pursuant to the general principles of international law.” 147 213. In this regard, the Court notes that, over its 40 years of existence, it has referred to crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes under international law on very few occasions, given the exceptional nature and seriousness of these categories. It has only been in the Cases of Goiburú v. Paraguay, 148 Gelman v. Uruguay. 149 La Cantuta v. Peru, 150 the Miguel Castro Prison v. Peru 151 (crimes against humanity), the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador 152 (war crimes) and the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil 153 (crimes under international law), that it has used these categories for violations in the sense indicated in the judgment in the case of Almonacid Arellano, in order to explain clearly the scope of State responsibility under the Convention in the specific case, together with the legal consequences for the State. 154 214. To complement the foregoing, the Court notes that the prohibition of crimes under international law and crimes against humanity was already considered part of general international law by the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 26, 1968 155 (hereinafter “the 1968 Convention” or “the Convention on NonApplicability of Statutory Limitations”). Bearing in mind Resolution 2338 (XXII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 156 the interpretation derived from the Preamble of the 1968 Convention is that the imprescriptibility of crimes against humanity arises from the fact that none of the instruments relating to their prosecution and punishment made provision for a limitation period, so that this Convention only reaffirmed pre-existing principles of international law. Thus, the Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations is declarative in nature; that is, it reflects a principle of international law in force prior to its adoption. 157 147 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 99. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of Septmber 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 82 and 128. 148 149 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 99. 150 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 225. Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of Novembr 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 404. 151 152 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring placesv. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 286. 153 Cf. Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, paras. 248 to 306. Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 42; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 215. 154 155 Cf. UN. General Assembly. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Resolution 2391 (XXIII), November 26, 1968. Disponible https://undocs.org/A/RES/2391(XXIII). 156 Cf. UN. General Assembly. Question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Resolution 2338 (XXII), December 18 1967. Available at https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2338(XXII). 157 See, in this regard, for example: Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Argentina: Appeal. Judgment of June 14, 2005, Case of Julio Héctor Simón et al., case No. 17,768, considerandum 42; Appeal. Judgment of August 24, 2004, Case of Arancibia Clavel, Enrique Lautaro, case No. 259, consideranda 29, 38 and 39; Ordinary appeal. Judgment of November 2, 1995, Case of Erich Priebke No. 16,063/94, consideranda 4 and 5; considerada 89 and 90 of the Concurring opinion of Judge Gustavo A. Bossert. See also: Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeaals Chamber, Argentina, Appeal for annulment. September 9, 1999, Case of Videla et al., considerandum III; Federal Oral Criminal Court of La Plata. Judgment of September 19, 2006, Case of “Circuito Camps” et al. (Miguel Osvaldo Etchecolatz), Case No. 2251/06, considerandum IV.a; Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 of San Martín. Judgment for crimes against 45