25 has stated that “even though prescription periods are a guarantee of the due process that must be duly observed by the judge of all those accused of a crime, its invocation and application is unacceptable when it has clearly been proven that the passing of time results from procedural actions or omissions which, with clear bad faith or negligence, attempt to favor or allow impunity.46” Conclusion of the Court Based on all the aforementioned, the Court concludes that it has not received proof that the decisions adopted by the Constitutionality Court and the Supreme Court of Justice –regarding the closing of the case- were made pursuant with that set forth by the Judgments and Orders of the Court in the present case. The decisions that led to the closing of the case have hindered initial progress in the compliance with the duty to investigate and create impunity in a case of a serious violation of human rights such as the present, failing to comply with that ordered by the Inter-American Court. In these types of cases, the prevalence of a dismissal over the victims’ rights leads to a continuation of the proceedings with clear violations of the access to justice, prolonging impunity and making the Court’s orders illusory. Therefore, the Tribunal decides that the State must carry out all the specific and appropriate processes to comply with said Judgments and Orders and adjust the corresponding judicial decisions, in such a way that the State continue with the investigation and it becomes impossible to introduce measures designed to eliminate responsibility and impede said investigation as well as the possible punishment of those responsible. 52. B. Harassment and threats against prosecutors, victims, and witnesses The representatives informed of different facts that affected the victims and witnesses in the present case, namely that i) on May 5, 2009, Jennifer Harbury “was violently removed from her house” in Welasco, Texas, an incident “that occurred upon returning […] from a trip […] relate[d] with the search for justice in the case of her husband,” ii) on May 17, 2009, Mr. Ángel Nery Urízar García “who was a key 53. 46 In a similar sense, Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra note 36, Considering Clauses thirteen and seventeen and Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, supra note 36, Considering Clause nineteen.