280. The State argued that actions for the offenses of injuries and threats were subject to the statute of limitations and did not constitute a “grave human rights violation,” which “makes it legally impossible to treat these conducts as offenses that cannot become timebarred.” In this regard, it indicated that “not even applying the broadest concept as regards the possibility of making the principle of the prescription of the criminal action more flexible, would it be possible to lift the statute of limitations with regard to [these] two […] offenses,” because this principle not only “harmonizes fully with the provisions of the Convention as regards guarantees for the defendants,” but “disregarding it would give rise to a new international violation by the State.” Therefore, the State asked the Court “to apply its consistent case law that prohibition of implementing the statute of limitations applies only exceptionally in the case of […] grave human rights violations” and, consequently, to “reject the claims of the Commission and [the] victims’ representative that it order the reopening of [these] proceedings.” 281. In Chapters IX, X and XI of this Judgment, the Court determined that the facts of this case involved violations of personal integrity, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and residence, protection of the family, and the rights of the child, but the Court did not declare that they constituted acts of torture or forced disappearance. Furthermore, the Court declared the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention owing to the absence of effective and diligent investigations into the acts of violence against Mr. Vélez Restrepo, the threats and harassment, and the attempted deprivation of liberty, as well as into the violation of the guarantee of a natural judge in relation to the investigation into the said attack. 282. The Court reiterates that any violation of human rights supposes a certain gravity based on their very nature, because it entails non-compliance with certain State obligations to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms of the individual. However, this must not be confused with what the Court, in all its case law, has considered “grave human rights violations,” which have their own connotation and consequences. Moreover, this Court has indicated that it is not correct to expect that the application of the statute of limitations is inadmissible in every case submitted to the Court merely because human rights violations are involved.259 283. The Court has already indicated that, in criminal matters, application of the statute of limitations determines the extinction of punitive possibilities owing to the passage of time and that, generally, it limits the punitive powers of the State to prosecute the illegal conduct and punish the authors.260 According to the Court’s consistent and unvarying case law, in certain circumstances international law considers that application of the statute of limitations is inadmissible and inappropriate, in order to maintain the State’s punitive powers in force over time in relation to conducts, such as the forced disappearance of persons, extrajudicial execution, and torture, the seriousness of which makes their punishment necessary in order to avoid their repetition.261 The Court considers that, in the 259 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, paras. 117 and 118. 260 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 117. 261 Cf. inter alia, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 15; Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 106; Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 119; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 80