6 the Supreme Court of Justice, inter alia, pointed out that the domestic court adopted such decision in accordance with its domestic legislation,6 which establishes that for this remedy to be admitted “[…] it is not necessary that a new fact be proven or new evidence be submitted [where] an international body recognized by Colombia verified the evident non-compliance by the State of its obligation to conduct a of the rules of international humanitarian law has been committed […].” Furthermore, the Supreme Court assessed positively the “binding” and “intangible” nature of the decisions adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whereby it considered that “[…] what is unquestionable, what is to be complied with and may not be challenged is the order [that] the competent authority effectively investigate the facts so that those responsible for them may be identified, prosecuted and punished.” Regarding the application of the statute of limitations to the criminal proceedings, it pointed out that in cases “[…] of torture, the conclusion of the proceedings is not subject to the standard rules but to the provisions of international instruments on human rights and the case law of international bodies for the protection of human rights […].” It further pointed out that “pursuant [to the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on September 12, 2005, it is] unquestionable that the domestic proceedings in which the pertinent international rules are not complied with, particularly the provisions of the Inter-Americ[an] Convention, may not be deemed to be valid and, as pointed out by [the Inter-American Court], it is neither admissible nor relevant ‘to apply institutions such as amnesty, pardon, statutes of limitations or other measures designed to eliminate responsibility.’7 12. That the Court positively assesses the decision adopted by the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, as it is an important step towards fulfilling the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, it applicable, punish those responsible for the facts described in the instant case. 13. That from the Judgment rendered by the Court in the instant case (supra Having Seen clause 1) it results that as a consequence of the illegal arrest and torture inflicted to Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler two investigations were started which concluded with decisions in favor of the defendant; one of these actions was started before the military criminal courts against Colonel Enciso-Barón and the other before the ordinary criminal courts against Ricardo Dalel-Barón. In this regard, in the above-mentioned Judgment the Court in paragraph 98 established that from the proven facts it resulted “that the proceedings started in connection with the instant case before the domestic courts were vitiated by the [non-adherence to the rules regarding due process of law],” wherefore they constituted “fraudulent res judicata.” In this regard, the Court highlights the willingness shown by the State to file another action for review in relation to the proceedings started before the ordinary courts. 6 Paragraph 4 of Article 192 of the Criminal Procedural Code, Act No. 906 of 2004, Published in Official Gazette No. 45.657 on August 31, 2004, in its pertinent part, sets forth that: “4. Where after an acquittal in proceedings started for violations of human rights or serious breaches of the rules of international humanitarian law, a decision adopted by an international body for the protection of human rights whose binding jurisdiction has been recognized and accepted by the State of Colombia determines a blatant non-performance of the obligation of the State to conduct a serious and impartial investigation into such violations, it will neither be necessary to prove the existence of a new fact nor to submit evidence which had not been submitted at the investigation stage.” 7 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia. Criminal Appellate Court. Appeal for Review. Reporting Judge Jorge Luis Quintero-Milanés. Admitted by means of record No. 267, of September 17, 2008. Bogota. (Record on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Volume II, folios 355 to 396).