instant case expired on June 7, 2007, that is, before the case was brought before the Court. 9 18. In this regard, this Court has indicated that, in criminal cases, the statute of limitations determines the expiry of the right to bring a criminal action due to the time elapsed, and generally limits the punitive power of the State to prosecute unlawful conduct and punish those responsible.10 Nevertheless, in its case-law, the Court has specified that the statute of limitations is inapplicable in certain cases that involve serious human rights violations, for which the State’s punitive power is maintained against conduct whose repression is imperative. In this sense, in the case of Albán Cornejo V. Ecuador, the Court made clear that "the statute of limitations is inadmissible in connection with and inapplicable to a criminal action where gross human rights violations under International Law are involved. This criterion has been upheld in the Court’s constant and consistent decisions.” 11 More recently, in its Judgment in the case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, the Court reiterated this view when it stated that “in certain circumstances, International Law considers statutes of limitations to be inadmissible and inapplicable, as well as amnesty laws and the establishment of exemptions of liability, in order to maintain the State’s punitive power for conducts that, because of their seriousness and to avoid repetition, need to be repressed.” 12 19. Likewise, in the Judgment delivered in the case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, the Court reiterated its case-law with regard to “[…] the statute of limitation provisions […] that are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions and forced disappearances are not admissible, all these being prohibited for contravening irrevocable rights recognized by International Human Rights Law.” 13 This jurisprudence was also upheld in recent cases telemática, ou quebrar segredo da Justiça, sem autorização judicial ou com objetivos não autorizados em lei. Pena: reclusão, de dois a quatro anos, e multa. Brazilian Criminal Code, Decree-Law No. 2.848, of December 7, 1940: Prescrição antes de transitar em julgado a sentença Art. 109 - A prescrição, antes de transitar em julgado a sentença final, salvo o disposto nos §§ 1º e 2º do Art. 110 deste Código, regula-se pelo máximo da pena privativa de liberdade cominada ao crime, verificando-se: […] IV - em oito anos, se o máximo da pena é superior a dois anos e não excede a quatro. 9 The case was submitted to the Court on December 20, 2007. 10 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of November 22, 2007. Series C N° 171, para. 111, and Case of Vera et al v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 117. 11 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 10, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al, supra note 10, para. 117. 12 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 207. 13 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 171. 6