8 17. That, furthermore, in its prior cases the Court has established that where serious violations of human rights have been committed, the State may not invoke statutes of limitations or any other measures intended to exclude its responsibility for its obligations.10 18. That in view of the statements made by the State, the representatives and the Commission at the private hearing, the Court has verified that in one of the proceedings, in 2006 the Constitutional Chamber confirmed the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings (supra Considering clauses 9 and 10) and according to its prior decisions over this matter, the Court taking into consideration that the State undertook to take the necessary steps so that the domestic competent organs may seek proper recourse, deems that the State must submit detailed and up-to-date information in that regard. * * * 19. That regarding operative paragraph two of the Judgment, in connection with the exhumation and identification of the victims’ mortal remains and their delivery to their next of kin, the State pointed out that an DNA record of the victims’ next of kin was kept, but only one person appeared in order to fill in a form and have the pertinent tests done. It further informed that visual inspections had been conducted in north sectors 5 and 6 of Cementerio General del Sur [cemetery]. Three bodies were located and identified, which lay at the headquarters of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigation Corps [Medicatura Forense del Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas], wherefore the publication of notices on the press is being coordinated in order to summon the victims’ next of kin in connection with the delivery of the bodies. Finally, several meetings have been held with the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Scientific, Penal, and Criminal Investigation Corps in order to set the procedures to be adopted so that the remains that are still in the niches of Cementerio General del Sur may be found and identified. In this regard, at the private hearing, the State did not submit any new information, but referred to the difficulties it has in complying with this measure. 20. That the representatives pointed out that the victims’ next of kin have not had access to reliable information on the facts and on the disappeared persons, nor to the remains of their relatives. Additionally, they requested more detailed information on the meetings held with officials of the Department of Forensic Medicine and the officials who were involved with the burials. They denied having been notified of the project regarding the DNA record and informed that the victims’ next of kin refused to receive their relatives’ bones if they had not been the object of exhaustive expert reports, which is why they requested that the State retain the services of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team [Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense], on the grounds that the Venezuelan Legal Medicine Institute [Instituto de Medicina Legal Venezolano] “is not qualified to conduct such a complex task.” In this regard, at the private hearing, the representatives reiterated their statements and requested that the State submit a 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 Court of May 3, 2008, Considering clause 13; and Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 147. 10