of a reparation that an intrusion may imply for the victims and their families fades as time goes on. 58 Therefore, the failure of the State regarding the implementation of this measure of reparation is not related to the acknowledgment of responsibility in this case. 45. Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that the judicial authorities, when reviewing whether to apply the statute of limitations to the crime of torture, given its severity, should declare the applicability of the statute of limitations, where applicable, only after an investigation has been carried out with due diligence. This standard does not imply that the Court is unaware of the scope and importance of the procedural institution of the statute of limitations, which in some countries in the region is recognized as a guarantee of the defendant. The Court considers that, as a general rule, the procedural institution that is the statute of limitations must be applied when it so corresponds, unless, as in this case, there is a clear lack of due diligence in the investigation and, consequently, a denial of access to justice for a victim of torture. 46. Moreover, the Court notes that in this case, Argentine courts declared the statute of limitations for the criminal action in 2003 and 2004 (supra Considering clause 22) and an evaluation of it was underway by the Supreme Court of Justice, without the State informing the Inter-American Court of this situation when it issued the Judgment. To the extent that this was contrary to the acknowledgment of international responsibility effectuated by the State, this information should have been provided to the Court at that time. In this regard, the Court recalls that, pursuant to international law, the State cannot invoke during the monitoring of compliance stage, a fact in its favor that it knew of and should have diligently reported to the Court. In addition, subsequent to the Judgment, in 2007, the State rendered a decision by the Supreme Court of Justice (supra Considering clause 23 and 24), which is unrelated to the acknowledgment of responsibility, to the commitment to investigate assumed by the State before the Court, and to the Judgment issued by this Court. All these elements, combined with the failure to investigate the torture that took place with due diligence, justify the Court’s decision to maintain the order to investigate issued in the Judgment. 47. Moreover, the Court awaits more information about the processes mentioned by the representative (supra Considering clause 25) with respect to the obstacles in the investigation related to the alleged threats (claim No. 25156) and alleged disappearance and destruction of evidence (claim No. 61720). In this regard, a request is made for the State to provide, in the period specified in the operative paragraphs of this Order, complete and detailed information about all processes and investigations initiated in relation to the facts of this case. C. Publication of the Judgment (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment) 48. The State reported that the relevant parts of the Judgment were published in the Official Bulletin No. No. 31.486 on September 10, 2008, and in the newspaper, “La Prensa” on September 25, 2008, and it provided a copy of these publications. 58 Cf. Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgments. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 17, 2009., Considering 18. 19