A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 89. In relation to statutes of limitation, it is of particular importance that the obligation to undertake effective investigations in order to determine the truth exists independently from criminal proceedings.211 90. In most cases brought before the European Court, no legal impediments such as amnesty laws have been instituted. The former European Commission in Dujardin v. France212, considered an amnesty shielding fifty individuals from prosecution for the killing of several gendarmes. Understanding that the amnesty emerged in relation to broader efforts for the settlement of conflicts between communities in New Caledonia, the European Commission concluded that such an amnesty did not contravene the ECHR “unless it can be seen to form part of a general practice aimed at the systematic prevention of prosecution of the perpetrators of such crimes.”213 91. However, when ill-treatment or torture is concerned the European Court found in Yaman v. Turkey (paragraph 55.): “[W]here a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance for the purposes of an ‘effective remedy’ that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible.” 92. It could be concluded that considering torture and enforced disappearance are closely related and intertwined offenses that statutes of limitation and amnesties contravene the ECHR in such cases. In Aslakhanova and others v. Russia, the termination of pending investigations into abductions solely on the grounds that the time limit has expired is contrary to the obligations arising in relation to the right to life enshrined in Article 2 ECHR.214 93. The implementation of judgments by the European Court in relation to enforced disappearances in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, including practices of effective investigation by governmental authorities, remains low. Instead, authorities resorted to paying compensation fixed by the Court to the applicant. Yet, no action is undertaken in terms of investigation or prosecution of the alleged perpetrators.215 94. In Ecuador, according to the Constitution and the Criminal Code, a statute of limitations does not apply to enforced disappearances. In Uruguay, the courts have resorted to statutory limitations, which may result in the shelving of cases of enforced disappearances in the future.216 In Chile, in numerous cases, even if there were no grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, extenuating circumstances known as a “half prescription” have been applied, which lowered the penalty handed down in light of the time elapsed since the commission of the crimes. 217 In France, article 221-18 of the Criminal Code sets the limitation period for prosecution at thirty years. The starting point of the limitation period for public action is the day on which the disappearance ceases, i.e. the day on which certainty about the victim’s fate replaces uncertainty, the victim reappears in full light or his death is established. Enforced disappearance constituting a crime against humanity is not subject to a statute of limitations (article 213-5 of the Criminal Code). 95. In Nepal, on 26 April 2020 the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s petition calling for a review of its landmark judgment of 2015. The latter rejected a clause, which would have afforded the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation and the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons with the power to recommend amnesties for serious human rights violations committed the internal conflict between 1996–2006. Following a similar decision in January 2014, the Court, in its ruling, reiterated the prohibition of 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 IACHR, Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, Preliminary objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011, Series C No. 224 paras. 122 and 123. EComHR, Dujardin v. France, Application No. 16734/90, 2 September 199, D.R. No. 72. Ibid. para. 243. European Court of Human Rights, Aslakhanova and others v. Russia (see footnote 147) para. 237. Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 12276, 4 June 2010, “Legal remedies for human rights violations in the North-Caucasus region”, available at http://bit.ly/1QXp5CJ. See URY 1/2013; See also the contribution for this report by Francesca Lessa, Latin American Centre, OSGA, “Investigating Crimes against Humanity in South America,” Policy Brief (Oxford, 2019) 8. Available at www.ohchr.org; See also Article 80 and 120 of the Constitution of 2008; see also the contribution for this report of Defensoría del Pueblo de Ecuador. Available at www.ohchr.org. A/HRC/22/45/Add.1 paras. 28 and 69, p.18. 37