21 there is a possibility that, in certain cases, some restrictions applied to the principle of res judicata are not valid if the respective facts do not include especially grave conduct, and the lack of outcome in a specific investigation holds no relationship with particular procedural actions or omissions, clearly carried out in bad faith or negligently, in order to favor or allow impunity.36 However, when dealing with grave and systematic violations to human rights, such as in the present case, the impunity of these behaviors due to the lack of investigation is a rather high infringement of the victims’ rights. The extent of this infringement not only authorizes but also demands an exceptional limitation of the guarantee of ne bis in idem, in order to allow the reopening of these investigations when the decision argued as res judicata stems from the protuberant noncompliance of the duties to investigate and seriously punish grave violations. In such cases, the preponderance of the victims’ rights over legal certainty and the ne bis in idem is even more evident, since the victims not only suffered atrocious behavior but they must also bear the State’s indifference, which openly fails to comply with its obligation to clarify the acts, punish those responsible, and repair the affected parties.37 The seriousness of the events of these cases is of such magnitude that it affects the essence of social coexistence and, at the same time, prevents any type of legal certainty. Therefore, when analyzing the legal appeals that may be filed by the defendants for grave violations of human rights, the Tribunal points out that judicial authorities are obliged to determine if the deviation in the use of a criminal guarantee can generate a disproportionate restriction of the victims’ rights, where a clear violation of the right to access justice affects the criminal procedural guarantee of res judicata. In this regard, the “Set of updated principles for the protection and promotion of human rights by fighting impunity” states that: 44. States should adopt and enforce safeguards against any abuse of rules such as those pertaining to prescription periods, amnesty, right to asylum, refusal to extradite, non bis in idem, due obedience, official immunities, repentance, the jurisdiction of military courts and the irremovability of judges that fosters or contributes to impunity.38 36 In a similar sense, Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause thirteen and seventeen and Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010. Considering Clause nineteen. 37 In a similar sense, Cf. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-004 of January 20, 2003 (Dossier D-4041). 38 United Nations, Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through actions to Combat Impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), principle 22.