3. Inter-American standards with respect to prescription in criminal matters involving certain violations of human rights 110. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that “In criminal cases, the statute of limitations causes the lapse of time to terminate the right to bring action for punishment and, as a general rule, it sets a restriction on the punishing authority of the State to prosecute and punish defendants for unlawful conduct."139 It has also indicated that he statute of limitations should be duly observed by the judge for all accused of a crime.140 However, both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have pronounced on the inapplicability, under certain circumstances, of the statute of limitations in criminal cases: i) in situations in which justice is clearly being obstructed; and ii) when grave human rights violations are involved. 111. As regards the first circumstance, the Court has indicated that invoking and applying the statute of limitations: is unacceptable when it has been clearly proven that the passage of time has been determined by procedural actions or omissions, in bad faith or negligence, to encourage or allow impunity. Thus, the Court reiterates what it has noted on other occasions, in that “[t]he right to effective judicial protection requires [...] the judges to direct the process so as to prevent undue delays and obstruction which will lead to impunity, thereby agitating [Tr. thwarting?] the judicial protection of human rights."141 The Court has further noted that “when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State apparatus, are also bound to it, obligating them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished.”142 That is, that the statute of limitations yields to the rights of victims when there is an obstruction of the obligation to identify, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of a crime.143 112. As regards the second circumstance, which is the one that may turn out to be relevant for the analysis of the controversy raised in the instant case, both the Court144 and the Commission145 have found that apply the statute of limitations in criminal cases violates the American Convention in cases of grave human rights violations, such as the forced disappearance of persons, extrajudicial execution, and torture, which does not necessarily imply that such acts took place in the context of massive and systematic violations.146 139 I/A Court H.R., Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, par. 111. 140 I/A Court HR. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Loayza Tamayo Case. July 1, 2011. par. 40. Citing: Cf. Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, par. 41; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, par. 171; and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011, Series C No. 221, par. 225. 141 I/A Court HR. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Loayza Tamayo Case v. July 1, 2011. par. 40. Citing: Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 115; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, par. 116; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, Fourteenth Whereas Clause, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Resolution of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Seventeenth Whereas Clause. 142 I/A Court HR. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Loayza Tamayo Case v. Friday, July 01, 2011. par. 40. Citing. Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 124; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia"). See note 15 above, par. 176; and Case of Gelman v. Argentina, note 15 above, par. 193. 143 I/A Court HR. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Loayza Tamayo Case v. July 1, 2011. par. 40. 144 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos Case v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, par. 41. 145Cf. IACHR, Report No. 35/98, Case 12.019, Antonio Ferreira Braga, Brazil, July 19, 2008. I/A Court HR. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226. par. 117. 146 22