10 duly observed by the judge for any and all people accused of an offense,13 the invocation and application of the same is unacceptable when it has been clearly proven that the passage of time has been determined by procedural actions or omissions directed, with bad faith or negligence, to provide for or permit impunity. In this respect, the Court has pointed out many times in other opportunities, in the sense that “[t]he right to effective judicial protection therefore requires that the judges direct the process in such a way that undue delays and hindrances do not lead to impunity, thus frustrating adequate and due protection of human rights."14 At the same time, the Tribunal has pointed out that “when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention; this forces them to see that all effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected.”15 This means that the guarantee of the statute of limitations transfers to the rights of the victims when situations are presented that obstruct the obligation to identify, judge, and sanction those responsible for an offense. 18. That in its prior jurisprudence this Court has pointed out, referring to the principle of ne bis in idem, that this is not applicable when: i) the actions of the tribunal that heard the case and decided to stay the case or absolve the one responsible of a violation of human rights or international law obeyed the purpose of removing the accused of his/her criminal responsibility; ii) the procedure was not instructed independently or impartially in accordance with the due procedural guarantees, or iii) there was no real intention of submitting the one responsible to the action of justice. A pronounced sentence of the indicated circumstances produces “apparent” or “fraudulent” res judicata.16 Also, before this Tribunal eventually can discuss the authority of res judicata of a decision when rights of individuals protected by the Convention are affected and it demonstrates that a reason for questioning res judicata exists.17 Precisely in another case against Peru, this Tribunal declared that “[i]f the proceedings upon which the judgment rests have serious defects that strip them of the efficacy they must have under normal circumstances, then the judgment will not stand.”18 19. That the information contributed by the parties permits the Tribunal to determine only that in the three processes referred to, the statute of limitations of the criminal actions were declared and that in one of those the exception of res judicata was also declared well13 Cf. Barrios Altos case, supra note 12, paragraph 41; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers case, supra note 12, considering thirteenth, Albán Cornejo et al. case, supra note 12, paragrah. 111 14 Cf. Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2008, considering eighteenth. 15 Cf. Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paragraph 124; Bulacio case, supra note 14, considering eighteenth, y Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, paragraph 78. 16 Cf. Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, paragraph 131; La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paragraph 153, and Almonacid Arellano et al. case, supra note 15, paragraph 154. 17 Cf. Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Request for Revision of Sentence, Reparations and Costs. Order of the Court of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, paragraphs 10 through 12; La Cantuta case, supra note 16, paragraph 153, y Almonacid Arellano et al. case, supra note 15, paragraph 154. 18 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 219.