CCPR/C/115/D/2358/2014 personnel under his command had travelled to Argentina. Court No. 19 nonetheless concluded that, at the time of the alleged acts, there was an organized power structure composed of members of the civilian-military administration and that the author could not have been unaware that such events were taking place since, in 1978, he was Commander-in-Chief of the Army and as such was a member of the Junta of Commanders. 2.8 On 21 October 2009, Court No. 19 sentenced the author to 25 years ’ imprisonment for the crime of homicide, in especially aggravated circumsta nces, in repeated offences, against 37 persons. The Court found that the failure to locate the bodies of the victims and the fact that the details could not be accurately established were no impediment to a finding that the victims had been murdered and were dead. On the other hand, the charge of enforced disappearance of persons brought by the Public Prosecution Service could not succeed as this offence was defined under article 21 of Act No. 18026, and that Act could not be applied to events that had occurred prior to its entry into force, pursuant to the principle of non -retroactivity of criminal law. However, the Court also noted that offences “committed during the de facto Government in a context of State terrorism, in a systematic, planned fashion and on a massive scale, such as enforced disappearance, killings ... include practices considered under international law to be crimes against humanity, which are not subject to the statute of limitations and the prosecution of which is mandatory for all States”; that under international law provisions on limitation intended to prevent the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for serious violations of human rights were inadmissible; and, therefore, that the State could not invoke those provisions in order to evade its obligation to prosecute and punish those responsible. Moreover, even on the basis of the State party’s criminal law, the statute of limitations did not apply to the offences being prosecuted as the period of limitation sho uld have started to run on 1 March 1985, given that, when the regime in power between 1973 and 1985 was in place, legal action of any kind in this connection was impossible. Furthermore, the limitation period should be extended by one third, in accordance with article 123 of the Criminal Code, owing to the dangerousness of the author and given the seriousness of the events under investigation and the nature of the motives pursued. 2.9 With regard to the appraisal of the evidence, the Court considered that, in the light of the evidence presented during the trial, the role that the author played as a member of the Junta of Generals and the Junta of Commanders -in-Chief in 1977 and 1978, and information in the public domain at the time the events forming the subject matter of the trial occurred, it had to be concluded that the author was aware of the actions carried out by members of the Armed Forces during the so -called war against subversion and that he was clearly involved in them at all times, given the power s conferred upon him by virtue of his office. Moreover, the author had issued Order No. 7438 of 8 March 1978, which prohibited the compartmentalization of information in the context of the actions of the Armed Forces, and Order No. 7777, of 3 July of the same year, in which he assumed responsibility for all acts of his subordinates associated with the so-called war against subversion. Lastly, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish the author ’s criminal liability. 2.10 The Public Prosecution Service appealed against the judgement insofar as it categorized the facts as a crime of homicide and not of enforced disappearance. The author also appealed against the judgement before the Second Rota Criminal Appeal Court (the Appeal Court). The author reiterated his claims arguing, among other things, that his involvement in the victims’ deaths through physical acts had not been proven; that the events could be attributed to him only through a charge of negligence — an issue that had not been addressed in the judgement under appeal; that he was unaware of the acts ascribed to him, since they had begun before he became 4/11 GE.15-21845