35 information about the migratory activities of Dr. Espinoza-Cuesta to the National Director for Migration; and that on November 20, 2006, it referred the request for extradition to the Office of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 86). Upon request from the Supreme Court dated January 30, 2007, the Fifth Court declared that the case against Dr. Espinoza-Cuesta was already time-barred (supra, paras. 88 and 89) 108. In the instant case, the State itself admitted that the authorities had not conducted a serious and effective investigation aimed at locating Dr. EspinozaCuesta and obtaining, if appropriate, the extradition of the accused. However, on October 16, 2007 the Fifth Criminal Court declared that the statute of limitations period had already elapsed on the criminal action against said physician; this decision was appealed on October 25, 2007, was admitted and, at the moment, is pending of decision before the Superior Court of Justice of Quito (supra paras. 90 and 91). * * * 109. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 4, 5(1) and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán-Sánchez. * * * 110. The Court was recently informed that the Fifth Criminal Court declared on October 16 2007 that the statute of limitations had barred the criminal action with regards of Dr. Espinoza-Cuesta. Such decision was challenged and is currently pending solution by the competent authorities (supra paras. 90 and 91). Such decision is not firm, meaning it is not non bis in idem. However, the Court has deemed it appropriate to analyze the statute of limitations in the light of the facts of the instant case, wherein the State recognized its international responsibility for its lack of due diligence as it failed to timely commence the process for the extradition of one of the defendants in connection with the investigation undertaken to clarify the death of Miss Albán (supra paras. 10, 16 and 17). 111. 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. This is a guarantee that needs to be duly observed by the judge for the benefit of any defendant charged with an offense. This notwithstanding, the statute of limitations is inadmissible in connection with and inapplicable to a criminal action where gross human rights violations in the terms of International Law are involved. So has been held in the Court’s constant and consistent decisions.106 In the instant case, the application of the statute of 106 Cf. Case of Barrios-Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Almonacid-Arellano v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 110; and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 9, para. 294.