24. The decision of the Supreme Court22 focused on determining “whether the facts under investigation [...] are subsumed in the codification of crimes against humanity,” given that "the main aspect of the complaint [regards] the allegation that the crime allegedly committed against [Mr.] Bueno Alves, [...] is a crime against humanity [and therefore], it would not be subject to the statute of limitations.” In particular, the Supreme Court held that: a) “torture, as a State practice, is prohibited by customary law that existed prior to the Convention against Torture [...] of 1984.” Therefore "it involves an attempt to establish that during said period, torture, as a State practice, was clearly prohibited as a crime against humanity” and that the most modern codification does not restrict the range of what is accepted as a crime against humanity, “rather, in all cases, it has expanded on it, which cannot cause any harm to the applicant”; b) “the facts that allegedly took place in this case do not constitute crimes against humanity,” neither under a general definition on the legally protected interest, since “the crimes of which [Mr.] Bueno Alves had been the victim of are not in line with the international purpose that was taken into consideration at the time crimes against humanity was codified” nor under a more specific analysis on the constituent elements of such crimes. In this case, “even when the act of torture is proven in this case, it is clear that in the Republic of Argentina, throughout 1988, there was no State or organization within the State that demonstrated acquisition of basic characteristics or that evinced having become a machine that produced perverse systematic and organized persecution of a group of citizens, deviating from its main purpose which was the promotion of the common good and of a peaceful coexistence.” Regarding the existence of the constituent elements of crimes against humanity, it noted that "presumably the conduct committed against [Mr.] Bueno Alves does not encompass the aspect of an attack that is part of a set of acts and, above all, of a State policy, [...] and even if it is understood that there is a widespread police practice of harming people, there is no reason to interpret this phenomenon as the execution by omission of a specific policy of the State against any group so defined by their common characteristics”; c) “the obligation to investigate does not constitute a sufficient independent basis to further prosecute for a criminal action that has expired, when the fact under investigation is a crime subject to the statute of limitations”; d) “that which is forbidden from the States by the duty to guarantee (Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights) is the enactment of laws or any other provision in order to prevent the investigation and punishment of serious violations of human rights (crimes against humanity), but by no means can this be understood as prohibiting these facts from being subject to the general rules regarding expiration or 22 The Supreme Court “shared and took as its own the conclusions and foundations of Mr. Prosecutor General, whose terms were forwarded briefly.” Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 11, 2007 (case file of monitoring of compliance with Judgment, Tome I, folio 71) 11