any way hinder the investigations […] of crimes against humanity” 207 (supra paras. 72, 73, and 76 to 78). 188. Based on the foregoing, this Court notes that in terms of the time elapsed, the content of Laws 23,492 and 23,521 ostensibly affected compliance with the duty to investigate and punish the serious human rights violations committed. Although these laws were not directly applied in the judicial proceedings (infra para. 194), they amounted to an obstacle to effectively launching those proceedings, resulting in the prolonged delay in guaranteeing the victims’ right to justice for the crimes committed. Consequently, this element must be taken into account in cases such as the present one, insofar as the delay is attributable solely to the State, causing clear harm to the rights of the alleged victims. 208 This is exacerbated as regards the investigation and punishment of the crimes of "abduction and concealment of minors" and “replacement of civil status" of which Anatole and Victoria were victims, since these crimes were excluded from the “impunity laws” and the State did not provide justification for the excessive delay between the commission of the acts in 1976 and the convictions handed down in 2012 and 2021, respectively (supra paras. 173 and 174). 189. With regard to the fourth element of analysis, referring to impact that the procedural delay had on the interested parties, it should be recalled that forced disappearance entails a multiplicity of offenses and is continuing in nature. It therefore has a lasting impact on the relatives of the disappeared persons—in this case, Anatole and Victoria, who are awaiting clarification of what happened and the whereabouts of their father and mother. Similarly, the delay in processing and resolving the judicial proceedings continues to have a significant impact on the legal situation of the alleged victims, and thus a greater effort is required to expedite the cases. 190. Consequently, the excessive delay of the different proceedings launched to prosecute the facts of this case produced a violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time. Also, with regard to the specific facts committed to the detriment of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, because the prosecution and punishment of those responsible remains pending 45 years after he first disappeared, the State has failed to comply with its obligation to clarify these facts, amounting to a breach of the provisions of Article I(b) of the ICFDP. 191. It should be noted that the representative also pointed to a delay in “addressing" the so-called "spoils of war." However, as indicated by the judge in the case, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged victims had not brought the civil action in the specific case, there was no evidence that the property where the September 26, 1976, operation took place “was owned by the [Julien Grisonas] family,” nor was “any documentary evidence proving [its] ownership” provided. 209 Therefore, the Court finds that in view of the discrepancies in the arguments presented, it does not have the elements necessary to analyze the alleged violation of the guarantee of a reasonable time in terms of the intended response regarding the property damage referenced by the representative. Cf. Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on June 14, 2005, case of “Simón, Julio Héctor et al. regarding illegitimate deprivation of liberty, etc. – case no. 17,768–.” The Supreme Court found as follows: [T]he case law of the Inter-American Court […] constitute[s] an essential guideline for interpreting the duties and obligations derived from the American Convention […]. [T]he “Barrios Altos” case set strict limits on the power of Congress to grant amnesty, preventing it from covering facts such as those covered by the full stop and due obedience laws. […] [T]here can be no delay in removing the full stop and due obedience laws, and it must be done in such a way that no legal obstacle can arise from them to the prosecution of facts such as those constituting the subject of this case. This means that those who were beneficiaries of such laws can invoke neither the prohibition of retroactivity of the most serious criminal law nor res judicata. 208 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, par. 259. 209 Cf. Order of July 17, 2020 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 14 to the answering brief, folios 11024 and 11025). 207 50