for the inalienable right of every person who has been the victim of an act of torture to initiate proceedings against any torturer.” 48 In its conclusions on Turkey, the Committee recommended that "the statute of limitations be derogated for crimes related to torture.”49 In its conclusions on Slovenia, the Committee expressed its concern that the crime of torture is subject to a statute of limitations50 and recommended the State party “to declare the non-applicability of the statute of limitations form the crime of torture.” 51 In its conclusions on France, the Committee recommended the State party to define under their criminal law the crime of torture as a “violation not subject to a statute of limitations.” 52 39. The guidelines set by international human rights law must be considered when analyzing the application of domestic law. In this regard, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Colombia, upon rejecting a claim for the statute of limitations in relation to a case of torture that was not related to the general pattern, noted that in cases “[...] of torture, the application of the statute of limitations does not follow common rules, but rather the guidelines set by international human rights instruments and jurisprudence of international human rights bodies [...].”53 40. Finally, in the possible analysis of impunity in a legal proceeding, it is important to note that certain contexts of institutional violence, as well as some obstacles in the investigation, can lead to serious impediments for the proper investigation of some human rights violations. In each case in particular, taking into account specific arguments about evidence, the non-applicability of the statute of limitations at a given time may relate to the objective of preventing the State from evading its responsibility for the injustices carried out by its officials in the framework of these contexts. In this regard, in relation to Argentina, the Committee against Torture has expressed concern over the use of "duress" in the investigation of torture, something that has even occurred in this case and which meant that the maximum penalty for the computation of the statute of limitations be of five years (supra Considering clause 22). This Committee stated its concern with: The repeated practice by judicial officials of the misclassification of events, assimilating the crime of torture with crimes of lesser severity (for example, duress), which are punishable with lesser sentences, when in fact they should have been classified as torture.54 48 Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: Morroco, supra note 47, para. 6 (d). 49 Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: Turkey, May 27, 2003, Document of the United Nations CAT/C/CR/30/5, Recommendation, paragraph 7(c); Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: Slovenia, May 27, 2003, CAT/C/CR/30/4, Recommendation, paragraph 6 (b); Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: supra note 46, paragraph 7 (f). 50 Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: Slovenia, May 27, 2003, CAT/C/CR/30/4, paragraph 5 (b). 51 Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: Slovenia, supra note 50, para. 6 (b). 52 Final Observations of the Committee against Torture: France, April 3, 2006, Document of the United Nations CAT/C/FRA/CO/3, paragraph 5. 53 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2009., Considering 11 and Casation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Colombia, Judgment of September 17, 2008 (Remedy of Review). 54 Committee against Torture, CAT/C/CR/33/1, December 10, 2004. Also, when assessing, in regard to Argentina, the factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention on Torture, the Committee against Torture noted that “the severity of the penalties for torture under Article 144 third of the Penal Code, in particular the sanctions for cases of death resulting from torture, which formally satisfy 17