4 warned that the State “has the obligation to use all legal means at its disposal to combat the situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and complete defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”6 This obligation implies the duty of the States Parties to the Convention to organize their governments and, more generally, all structures through which it exercises public power, so as to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.7 11. Hence, due to its importance, the obligation to investigate must be executed in a specific way, in accordance with standards provided for in international laws and jurisprudence, which state that investigations must be prompt, thorough, impartial, and independent.8 12. In addition, the Court reiterates that in criminal matters, the prescriptive period causes the termination of punitive objectives due to the passage of time, and as a general rule, limits the punitive power that the State holds to prosecute illicit behavior and punish the perpetrators.9 Therefore, prescriptive periods, in certain cases, allows the guilty party to oppose an undefined or endless criminal prosecution, thus acting as a corrective to the delays that the bodies in charge of criminal prosecution may incur while exercising their duties. 13. Although prescription is a guarantee of due process that the judge must properly observe for all persons accused of a crime,10 its invocation and application is unacceptable when it has clearly been proven that the passage of time has been determined by procedural actions or omissions aimed to, in bad faith or negligence, cause or allow impunity. In this regard, the Court reiterates what it has stated on other occasions, that “[t]he exercise of effective judicial protection requires […] the judges to lead the process in such as way to avoid inappropriate delays and hindrances that lead to impunity, and thus frustrate the adequate judicial protection of human rights.”11 Likewise, the Court has indicated, “when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State apparatus, are also bound by it, which obligates Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause eighty-one. 6 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 5, para. 173; Case of El Amparo, supra note 5, Considering Clause eighteen, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 5, Considering Clause twenty-one. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of El Amparo, supra note 5, Considering Clause eighteen, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 5, Considering Clause twenty-one. 8 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, Considering Clause thirteen; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause thirteen, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 5, Considering Clause twenty-one. 9 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 3, 2008, Considering Clause thirteen, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause sixteen. 10 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos, supra note 9, para. 41; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 9, Considering Clause thirteen, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause seventeen. 11 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 115; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2008, Considering Clause eighteen, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 8, Considering Clause seventeen.