34 lasted 15 years had an adverse effect on the criminal action filed against Juan Carlos Bayarri, who was unable to obtain opportune clarification of the torture inflicted on him. Second, the fact that 16 years had elapsed since the filing of the complaints and the start of the investigations could thwart the continuation of the criminal action that is underway.114 It has been proved that, on August 10, 2007, Judge of First Instance No. 41 declared that the criminal action relating to the two individuals identified in this case as allegedly responsible for the human rights violations committed to the detriment of the victim had extinguished owing to the statute of limitations.115 Furthermore, the case file shows that on March 1, 2008, those accused contested the case being brought to trial and filed the objection that the criminal action was subject to a statute of limitations.116 The Court has no information on how this issue was settled at the date of this judgment. 116. The denial of access to justice relates to the effectiveness of the remedies, in the terms of Article 25 of the American Convention, because it cannot be asserted that a criminal action in which clarification of the facts and determination of the alleged criminal responsibility is made impossible, owing to an unjustified delay in the proceedings, can be considered an effective judicial remedy. The right to effective judicial protection requires the judges to direct the proceedings so as to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, and thus prevent due judicial protection of human rights.117 117. The Court considers that, based on the lack of a prompt and final ruling on the criminal complaints filed in this case for torture and unlawful deprivation of liberty, the victim’s right to due judicial protection was violated. This right includes not only the victim’s access to criminal actions as a complainant, but also the right to obtain a final judgment through effective mechanisms of justice. Moreover, bearing in mind the notorious delay in both the investigation and the said proceedings, without any reasonable explanation, together with the acknowledgement of the facts made by the State, the Court finds that Argentina has violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri. B) Right to be heard by an independent and impartial judge or tribunal 118. The representatives alleged a series of facts concerning the supposed shielding by judges and judicial officials of those accused of the unlawful deprivation of liberty and 114 Cf. García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 158. 115 Cf. decision of August 10, 2007 (attachments to the brief with pleadings and motions, folios 5336 and ff.) in which the judge of first instance found that the maximum period of 12 years required for the application of a statute of limitations to the criminal action against those accused at that time had elapsed. 116 Cf. brief of Vicente Luis Palo’s defense lawyer (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996Cuerpo19.pdf, pages 405 and 406) requesting the dismissal of the case precisely because more than 16 years after it had started “it had not been possible to prove the existence of the alleged fact” and, consequently, at the opportune time, they had opposed the case being brought to trial. Alternatively, he requested that a statute of limitations be applied to the criminal action because, in his opinion, more than the 12 years required for this according to the provisions of the Argentine Penal Code had elapsed. See also the brief of Alberto Armentano’s defense lawyers (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996-Cuerpo19.pdf, pages 412 to 420) requesting the extinction of the criminal action owing to the application of the statute of limitations, because “over and above” the maximum length of the punishment established for the alleged crimes had elapsed since the time of their supposed perpetration and the moment the case was brought to trial: to wit, approximately 17 years. He also requested the dismissal of the proceedings, because he considered that it had not been proved that the accused was the author of the offense of which he was charged. 117 Cf. case of Bulacio, supra note 49, para. 115; Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 210; and case of Servellón García et al., supra note 55, para. 151.