10 9. That the State is to investigate the facts of the present case and identify and punish the responsible parties. 10. That, after examining the documentation submitted by the parties, the Court has verified that, to date, those responsible for the violations of the human rights of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides have not been identified. In this respect, the victim’s representatives advised that the Office of the 3rd Criminal Provincial Prosecutor of Lima had declared the criminal proceedings statute-barred and the definitive filing of the complaint lodged against those allegedly responsible for the violations of the victim’s human rights (supra twenty-third and twenty-fourth having seen paragraphs). 11. That, as it has established in its constant case law, the Court considers that, pursuant to the treaty obligations assumed by the States, no provision or institute of domestic law, including the statute of limitations, can be opposed to compliance with the decisions of the Court concerning the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations. Otherwise, the rights embodied in the American Convention would lack effective protection. This understanding of the Court is in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Convention, and also the general principles of law; one of these principles is that of pacta sunt servanda, which requires that the provisions of a treaty must be effective (the principle of effet util) in the domestic law of the States Parties.2 12. Based on the above, this Court considers that the State may not invoke the statute of limitations in its domestic law to fail to comply with the obligation established in the twelfth and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgments of August 18, 2000, and December 3, 2001, respectively. Moreover, the State must provide information on the different measures taken by the Office of the Attorney General or by the pertinent authorities in this respect. 13. That the Court shall consider the general status of compliance with the judgments on merits (supra eighth considering paragraph) and on reparations (supra ninth considering paragraph) when it has received the State’s report and the respective comments of the parties. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in exercise of its authority to monitor compliance with its rulings and in accordance with Articles 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 25(1) of its Statute and Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 1. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply promptly and effectively with the judgments on merits and reparations of August 18, 2000, and December 3, 2001, respectively, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Cantoral Benavides case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2 Cf. Bulacio case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 117; the “Five Pensioners” case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 164; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 112.