different requests to expedite the proceedings, on September 20, 2005, the prescription was declared of the criminal action underway with regard to the facts of the case and, consequently, it was requested that the judge of the case be fined; but this request was rejected. 173. In this regard, the Court has been advised that the judge who processed the criminal proceedings was removed from his judicial functions; nevertheless, the evidence provided does not reveal that the said removal was related to the facts of the instant case. 225 However, and in particular bearing in mind this removal, the Court does not consider it appropriate to order a reparation regarding the opening of administrative and disciplinary investigations in relation to the facts of this case. b) The criminal proceedings 174. The Court reiterates that any human rights violation involves a certain degree of severity by its very nature, because it involves the State’s failure to comply with specific obligations of respect for and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of the individual. However, this should not be confused with what, throughout its case law, the Court has considered “grave human rights violations,” which have their own connotation and consequences. The Court has also indicated that it is inappropriate to claim that the statute of limitations is not applicable, since all the cases submitted to it relate to human rights violations. 226 175. The Court has already indicated that, in the criminal jurisdiction prescription eliminates the possibility of punishment, owing to the passage of time and, in general, it limits the State’s punitive authority to prosecute the illegal conduct and sanction the authors. 227 According to the Court’s consistent and uniform case law, in certain circumstances, international law considers prescription inadmissible and inapplicable in order to maintain the State’s punitive authority in effect over conducts such as forced disappearance of persons, extrajudicial execution, and torture, the severity of which makes their punishment necessary in order to avoid their repetition. 228 176. In this regard, in this case, the Court considers that the necessary presumptions do not exist to use any of the exceptions to the application of the statute of limitations. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to order the State to re-open the criminal investigations into the facts related to the operation performed on Melba Suárez Peralta in July 2000. C. Measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 225 Report on the administrative proceeding against the former judge (file of annexes to the answering brief, folios 2241 to 2251). 226 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al., supra, paras. 117 and 118, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 282. 227 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra, para. 111, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members, supra, para. 283. 228 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 283. 50