the relevant parts of the Judgment.” The Commission added that information has been filed on the administrative and disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect to those responsible for the violations. ii) Considerations of the Court 27. The Court notes that regarding the facts of this case, the statute of limitations for the criminal action was declared on December 17, 2003, that is, approximately three and a half years before legal notice of the Judgment in this case, without this information being provided to the Court by the parties. In addition, the Court emphasizes that forty days after notification of the Judgment, the Supreme Court of Argentina confirmed the application of the statute of limitation to the benefit of a public official under investigation for acts of torture against Mr. Bueno Alves. The reasoning of the Supreme Court was based on the grounds that these facts did not constitute a crime against humanity, and for that reason, the statute of limitations could be applied. 28. In this regard, the Court has noted that the statute of limitations sets a period of time upon which its termination prevents the filing of a cause of action for punishment and, as a general rule, it sets a restriction on the punishing authority of the State to prosecute and punish defendants for unlawful conduct.25 The Court indicated in the Judgment of the case of Albán Cornejo V. Ecuador, a standard which states that “the statute of limitations is inadmissible in connection with and inapplicable to a criminal action where gross human rights violations are involved in the terms of International Law.”26 The invalidity of the application of the statute of limitations was not declared in this case because it involved medical negligence and a failure to comply with the standards of the Court. The Court noted that: the accused is not responsible for the celerity of the action of the judicial authorities in its development, or for the lack of due diligence of the State authorities. The burden of the delay on the administration of justice cannot be imposed over the accused in a criminal procedure, which would inevitably represent a breach of the rights of the accused in the terms of the law. 27 29. More recently, in the Judgment in the case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, it was stated that “in some circumstances, International Law considers the statute of limitations to be inadmissible and inapplicable, as well as amnesty provisions and the establishment of exceptions to responsibility, in order to maintain the States punishing authority in force against conduct where the gravity makes repression necessary in order to avoid the repeated commission of said conduct.”28 This standard, specifically, the non-applicability of a statute of limitations, was applied in the mentioned case in regard to “the torture and murder committed during a context of massive and systematic human rights violations.”29 Now, though this did 25 Cf. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 111 and Case of Ibsen-Cárdenas and Ibsen-Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 207 26 Case of Albán Cornejo V. Ecuador, para. 111. 27 Case of Albán Cornejo et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 25, para. 112. 28 Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsern Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 25, para. 207. 29 Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsern Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 25, para. 208. 13