5 precedent of the persisting ongoing policy of undue delays in which the Judiciary itself is acting as the protector of an extremely serious situation of impunity[, since] those judges who should have been removed from the case, as well as those who only recently have become involved in it due to administrative causes, continue to endorse the never-ending series of delaying motions which the [defendant’s] defense continues to successfully file.” Accordingly, the representatives advised the Court that, on September 10, 2008, “the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling whereby [it addressed] the dilatory tactics which the [defendant’s] attorneys have employed and continue to resort to in the criminal case and which are allowed by the judicial authorities.” “Despite the categorical nature of such ruling […] [it is the representatives’ view that] it is already too late: 12 years having elapsed since the criminal charges were first notified, the defense has yet to respond to the allegations, which rules out any possibility of a trial.” 10. That, as regards said criminal proceeding, the Commission stressed “the exceptional importance of the Supreme Court of Justice’s decision [of December 23, 2004], both to the specific case at hand and as regards the subject of impunity in general.” Again, however, it stated that “even though [said judgment] represents a significant step forward at the domestic case-law level regarding the subject of the inapplicability of the statute of limitations to investigations in cases involving human rights violations, the information provided by the State [...] does not speak of any specific progress in the investigation of the facts, the discovery of the historic truth and the determination of the criminal, administrative and other liability of the perpetrators of and masterminds behind the human rights violations against young Walter Bulacio.” Moreover, the Commission stated that it “appreciates [the] petitions made by the State in its capacity as complainant in the criminal action [intended, for the most part, to secure the prompt performance of any pending steps and to prevent new dilatory tactics on the part of the [defendant’s] attorneys, and is awaiting additional information on the outcome of such petitions and the progress made in the court proceedings after almost 12 years of the case halted due to multiple ancillary procedures and the defendant’s attorney’s failure to reply to the filings.” 11. That, as regards the criminal proceeding that is still pending to elucidate the facts of the instant case, the Court has taken note of the Supreme Court of Justice’s Judgment of December 23, 2004 and its ruling of September 10, 2008 (supra Considering clauses Nos. 8, 9 and 10). 12. That, in spite of said rulings by the Supreme Court, this Court is concerned about the fact that more than 17 years, 7 months have elapsed since the facts of the instant case took place, and more than five years have elapsed since the Judgment of the InterAmerican Court was rendered and the State has yet to elucidate the facts and determine the relevant criminal liability for the violations that were declared such in the instant case, and, accordingly, impunity still prevails. Therefore, as soon as possible, the State is to adopt all such measures as may be required to comply with such obligation. * * * 13. That, as regards the initiation of administrative or disciplinary proceedings in connection with the Judiciary’s actions in the processing of the criminal case, the State noted that, in its December 23, 2004 Judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice requested that the Council of the Judiciary place the judges who were involved in the processing of the case and who allowed the delay that led to the ancillary proceeding on the statute of limitations under investigation. On August 19, 2008, the Ministry of Justice, Security and