not regard a case in which the criminal statute of limitations had been argued, in the Judgment also issued recently, in the case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, the Court reiterated that “[…] the statute of limitation provisions […] that are intended to prevent the investigation and punish those responsible for serious violations to human rights such as torture, summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearance are not applicable, all of which are prohibited for contravening irrevocable rights recognized by International Law of Human Rights.” 30 This jurisprudence was also maintained in the last case before the Court wherein serious violations were alleged, namely, Gelman V. Uruguay. 31 30. Unlike these other cases, in the case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, the Court considers that “it is not able to determine the inapplicability of the criminal statute of limitations” to the facts of said case, in regard to the bullet-wound received by the victim which led to his death, eleven days later, while under State custody.32 From the aforementioned line of jurisprudence, the Court notes that the inadmissibility of the statute of limitations has been declared in cases that involve serious human rights violations, such as enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing of persons, and on occasions, torture. In some of these cases, the human rights violations occurred in a context of massive and systematic violations. 33 31. However, this case is not related to a crime against humanity. In fact, this Court stated that “the acts of torture committed against Mr. Bueno-Alves are under the protection [...] of the [American] Convention; however, this does not mean that said acts should be classified per se as a crime against humanity,”34 because such acts were not part of a context of widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population.35 That is, neither before the Supreme Court of Argentina nor before this Court was it proven that the acts of torture committed against Mr. Bueno Alves met the requirements of a crime against humanity. 32. Nevertheless, independent of whether or not certain conduct constitutes a crime against humanity, the Court reiterates that the obligation to investigate human rights violations is a positive measure that must be adopted by States to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention.36 The duty to investigate is an obligation of means, and not of results, which should be assumed by the State as a legal obligation in and of itself and not as a simple formality condemned from the onset to be unsuccessful, or a matter of particular interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family members or of the bearing of evidence from 30 Cf. 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, para. 171. 31 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 225 32 Cf. Case of Case of Vera-Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 122. 33 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 32, para. 117. 34 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina, supra note 25, para. 87. 35 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina, supra note 25, para. 86. 36 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 166 and 167; Case of Fernández-Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 191, and Case of RosendoCantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 175. 14