18 a) in the case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, the Tribunal analyzed a decision that, after the judgment issued by the Court, declared that, due to the prescription period of the criminal prosecution, the exercise of said action did not proceed. However, the investigation was later reopened in order to comply with the order to investigate issued by the Court.31 b) In another case related with the procedural guarantee of prescription periods, the case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Bolivia annulled the prescription periods ordered in said case on forced disappearance. The Second Criminal Chamber established that, taking into account the provision of the judgment issued by the InterAmerican Court in said case, “the State has the obligation to eliminate the obstacle represented by the prescription period of the criminal action so that those responsible can be criminally punished on the charge of forced disappearance.”32 c) In turn, as part of compliance in the case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, the Tribunal verified33 that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia declared the review of the defendant in the case of the torture suffered by Mr. Gutiérrez Soler to be well founded. The Supreme Court valued the “binding” and “intangible” nature of the rulings made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and considered that “[…] the order stating that the competent authority must effectively investigate the facts to identify and prosecute those responsible is unchallengeable, and must be complied with, without the possibility of opposing it.” Regarding the prescription periods of the criminal action, it highlighted that in cases “[…] such as torture, prescription periods are not subject to common rules, but rather international instruments guidelines on human rights and the jurisprudence of international bodies of human rights […].” Additionally, said Criminal Chamber indicated that “according [to the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005, it is] unquestionable that domestic proceedings that do not comply with so-called 31 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 14, 2007, Considering Clause ten. 32 Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Bolivia, Judgment of June 2, 2010. Mentioned in: Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and. Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 206. 33 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of June 30, 2009, Considering Clause eleven.