23 possibly, they were even killed.” Evidence was also found that “the disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez [was] linked to said practice,” thus the Court consider[ed] that it to be proven.41 Based on these considerations of the Tribunal, the domestic courts are obliged to eliminate any practice, regulation, or procedural institution that are admissible for general punishable acts but are inadmissible in relation to clear violations of the duty to investigate grave violations of human rights. After ten years, there has been no concrete domestic decision to remove said obstacles. The Tribunal states that having received a request from the State in 2010, the Court provided a complete copy of the evidence available in its dossier.42 The first steps to remove the obstacles that guaranteed impunity were strongly focused on the recently annulled actions (supra Considering Clauses 9(a) and 9(b)). 48. Similarly, the Court observes that different domestic judicial bodies have agreed to remove all procedural obstacles in order to reopen or continue with the corresponding investigations in cases of serious violations of human rights. Thus, for example, the defendants in the case of Barrios Altos v. Peru requested the dismissal of the case because the time period for the preliminary stage, or the investigation, had been exceeded, basing the request on a legislative decree that promoted that investigations be carried out within a reasonable period of time. In this regard, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima decided to declare the dismissal requests inadmissible and, therefore, continue with the proceedings against the defendants, without receiving an explicit or direct order from this Tribunal to do so.43 The aforementioned decision was made, inter alia, taking into account the constant jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court regarding the incompatibility of laws on amnesty and other procedural obstacles with the Convention, which, at the same time, prevent compliance with the obligation to investigate. In this sense, said Superior Court considered that it was appropriate to not apply the regulation, even though it creates some type of restriction of the defendants’ rights. Specifically, it indicated that “[b]ased on the 49. 41 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 132. Through a brief of February 1, 2010, the State of Guatemala requested from the Inter-American Court a certified copy of “all testimonial statements and all documents presented by the soldiers, as well as a certified copy of the judgment on merits and reparations,” in the present case. Through a note of the Secretariat of the Court of February 4, 2010, a certified copy of the Judgments issued in the present case and a certified copy of the entire dossier on merits was issued. 43 Cf. First Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lime, Ruling of September 15, 2010 (Dossier 28-2001-1º SPE/CSJLI), page 26. 42