6 Human Rights repeated the request, and the Council of the Judiciary “replied that, to date, there are no cases open against any judge who has been involved in the case of Bulacio.” 14. That, as regards such administrative proceedings, the representatives stated that “the information provided by the State […] is [...] insufficient to consider that the international decision has been complied with. The Council of the Judiciary has yet to make any progress in the attribution of liability to the judicial officers that were involved in the processing of the [criminal] proceeding; there is not even the specific identification of those judges that are the most compromised on account of there tolerance for impunity.” 15. That the Commission stated that “the determination of liability and the appropriate sanctions, at both the criminal and administrative levels, is critical, and that, in this regard, it is important for the State to report on […] the steps taken to achieve concrete results.” 16. That, in its Judgment, this Court noted that the defendant’s attorneys had resorted to “a large number of diverse legal questions and remedies (requests for postponement, challenges, incidental pleas, objections, motions on lack of jurisdiction, requests for annulment, among others), which have not allowed the proceedings to progress forward to their natural culmination” and that “[t]his manner of exercising the means that the law makes available to the defense counsel has been tolerated and allowed by the intervening judiciary bodies, forgetting that their function is not exhausted by enabling due process that guarantees defense at a trial, but that they must also ensure, within a reasonable time […,] the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to learn the truth about what happened and for those responsible to be punished.”5 17. That this Court has duly noted the fact that, in its Judgment of December 23, 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice stated that “[it was for] the Council of the Judiciary […] [to] determine the relevant liability” engaged as a result of the conduct of the judges involved in the investigation of the case of Bulacio. In this regard, the Council noted that, to date, there are no cases open against said judges (supra Considering clauses Nos. 13 and 14). 18. That it is relevant to repeat the text of the Judgment to the effect that “[t]he right to effective judicial protection therefore requires that the judges direct the process in such a way that undue delays and hindrances do not lead to impunity, thus frustrating adequate and due protection of human rights."6 In this regard, in previous cases the Court has also held that “when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention; this forces them to see that all effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected.”7 Accordingly, the State must adopt such measures as may be required to comply with the orders contained in the Judgment. * * * 19. That, as regards the application of administrative sanctions to those responsible for the facts of the instant case, the State reported that, on April 20, 2004, the Administrative Investigations Prosecutor requested that, “[c]onsidering the prosecutorial role taken on by 5 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paras. 113 and 114. 6 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra note 5, para. 115. 7 Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124. Cf. Case of Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, para. 78.