7 this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.2 7. That the State has reiterated that the “Supreme Court of Justice, in a reasoned decision of August 7, 1998, had declared the criminal proceeding against the accused, Fausto Morales Villota, statute-barred, because the crime of which he [Mr. Morales] was accused is punishable by imprisonment and therefore becomes statute-barred ten years after the issue of the court order to investigate the alleged crime,” and that “as a result of this reasoned decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to the legislation in force at that time, the criminal action against the Navy personnel [...] ha[d] been terminated and, therefore, it [was not possible] to file a new action for the same facts” (supra third, sixth and ninth having seen paragraphs). 8. That, although the Order of the Court of September 9, 2003, urged the State not to invoke the statute of limitations so as not to continue with the investigation, identification and punishment of those responsible in this case, the State has not taken any effective measures to comply with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment of June 19, 1998, (supra first having seen paragraph). The Order also requested that a report should be submitted before October 18, 2003 (supra eighteenth having seen paragraph), and this has not been received by the Court. 9. That, after examining the information provided by the State and the InterAmerican Commission, the Court has verified that the State has complied with: a) The payment ordered in favor of the next of kin of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos (third operative paragraph on reparations of the judgment of June 19, 1998); and b) The commemoration of the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos (third operative paragraph on reparations of the judgment of June 19, 1998). 10. That, after examining the information provided by the State and the InterAmerican Commission, the Court has verified that the State has not complied with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court, because it had indicated that the criminal proceeding was statute-barred (fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits of June 19, 1998). 11. That the Court, in its constant case law, has indicated that statute of limitations provisions or any other obstacle of domestic law intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for human rights violations are 2 Cfr. Benavides Cevallos case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, third considering paragraph; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 6, 2003, fourth considering paragraph; “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; El Amparo case. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002, third considering paragraph; and International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Application of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35.