same Article 8 243 of this treaty. Therefore, Article 8(4) of the Convention must be interpreted in harmony with these other norms and with the other provisions of the Convention. 129. Based on the above, as well as on the proven facts in this regard (supra paras. 96 to 125), and bearing in mind, also, that the parties agree that the judicial investigation of the events that resulted in the execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was not conducted in accordance with the required international standards and that they should be investigated (supra para. 17.2), the Court concludes that, in the instant case, the judicial proceedings were not in keeping with the guarantees of “due process” established in the said Article 8 and, consequently, did not produce the “non-appealable judgment” mentioned in paragraph 4 of this article. Added to this, the Court considers that, in this case, the extrajudicial execution of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was particularly serious, owing to the circumstances in which it took place, namely: (a) that, at the time of his death, Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez was investigating a bonded warehouse that was subsequently connected to the case of the “parallel customs house,” in which State agents were implicated; (b) that State agents were involved in the execution of Mr. Gutiérrez, and (c) that State agents obstructed the investigation opened into his death. Based on all the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in this specific case, the provisions of Article 8(4) of the Convention are not applicable. 130. Presuming that the provisions of Article 8(4) of the Convention would be applicable in any circumstances would imply that the decision of a domestic judge would have preeminence over a decision taken by this Court pursuant to the Convention. It would also mean, consequently, that the application, in any circumstance, of the said Article 8(4) of this treaty, could lead to impunity and to the non-applicability of the corresponding international norms, which would not accord with the object and purpose of the Convention. 131. It should be added that this would also happen, if the admissibility of the domestic statute of limitations was accepted at the international level in every case. However, in the cases in which it could be admissible, it must be in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. B.5. Conclusions 132. In this case, Argentina has accepted, and the Court has established, that the extrajudicial execution of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez can be attributed to the State and that, at the time of his execution, Mr. Gutiérrez was investigating the bonded warehouse beside the Avellaneda Second Police Precinct, which subsequently formed part of the so-called case of the “parallel customs house” (supra para. 42). In addition, Argentina accepted “the conclusions of the Commission’s Merits Report” that it was “responsible for not having conducted a serious, impartial and effective investigation into the victim’s execution, within a reasonable time and in keeping with the principles of due process of law.” 244 Thus, based on the contents of this chapter, the Court finds that the investigation and the criminal proceedings conducted owing to the extrajudicial execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez were fraught with irregularities and omissions by the State agents responsible for them as regards the collection of evidence, the following-up on logical lines of investigation, 243 Article 8(1) of the Convention stipulates: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 244 Cf. Merits Report No. 63/11 (merits file, folio 35). 49