received the case file in June 1995 but failed to take any action subsequently. The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights held that: “(para.125) By not investigating the human rights violations effectively for more than 11 years, and not punishing those responsible, the State violated the obligation to respect the rights established in the Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise to the victim [and] (para.127) … in this case it has been proved that Maritza Urrutia was tortured, a situation that imposes a special obligation on the State to investigate. In this respect, as indicated in the proven facts, the administrative and judicial authorities abstained from adopting any formal decision to initiate a criminal investigation of the alleged perpetration of the crime of torture, even thought the Resolution of the Guatemalan Ombudsman of October 6, 1992, concluded that, among other rights, the right of Maritza Urrutia to humane treatment had been violated [footnote omitted] and demanded from the Government ‘an effective investigation and a prompt clarification of the facts.’” The case is an important illustration of the lack of follow-up in systems where national human rights institutions, such as the Ombudsman, may initially investigate a case and recommend further action but the national authorities fail to act on such recommendations. This results in a delay in opening criminal investigations that may become indefinite where there is a lack of will to proceed. Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez reviewed and commented on the jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on delays in his concurring opinion in the case of Mack Chang v Guatemala: “[P]rotracted delay may, in itself, fragrantly violate the principle of reasonable time, irrespective of these indicative considerations. In one case, the Inter-American Court considered that five years would more than correspond to reasonable time (Genie Lacayo case, Judgment of January 29, 1997, Series C No. 30, para. 81) and, in another, it considered that a period of fifty months ‘far exceeds the ‘reasonable time’ contemplated in the American Convention’ (Suárez Rosero case, Judgment of November 12, 1997, cit., Series C No. 35, para. 73). As I have already said, the principle of reasonableness, with its natural temporal references, encompasses not only the proceeding against any individual, but also the proceeding to comply with the obligation of criminal justice entailed by a judgment on reparations. In the instant case, the duration of the proceeding, with all its implications and different aspects, has been more than double these periods, without a final decision being pronounced. At ‘the time of this judgment, after more than 13 years, the criminal proceeding is underway and the remedy of cassation is pending a decision, so that the final judgment that will decide on and punish those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Myrna Mack Chang has still not been rendered.’”104 2.3. Effective prosecution and punishment of those responsible for torture International law imposes a duty on states to ensure that acts of torture are recognized as offences under national criminal law. It also obliges states to investigate with a view to prosecuting suspects against whom there is credible evidence of torture, where the suspects 104 Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala, Reasoned Concurring Opinion Of Judge Sergio García Ramírez To The Judgment In Mack Chang V. Guatemala of November 25, 2003, para.272. 23