CAT/C/URY/CO/3 The State party should: (a) Ensure that the National Human Rights Institution has the independence, budget, infrastructure and the resources of its own that it needs to fully execute its mandate in accordance with the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (Paris Principles); (b) Urge the National Human Rights Institution to apply for accreditation with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Efforts to combat impunity and to provide redress for serious human rights violations committed during the dictatorship 16. The Committee recognizes the efforts of the State party to address impunity and to provide redress to the victims of past human rights violations (committed in 1973–1985) (see paragraphs 5 (c) and (d) above). However, the Committee is in disagreement with Supreme Court Decision No. 20 of 22 February 2013, in which the Court found that articles 2 and 3 of the Punitive Powers of the State Act (Act No. 18831) were unconstitutional. While it is understood that the scope of the finding of unconstitutionality is confined to the specific case in which this issue was raised, the Committee is of the view that the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow the retroactive application of the provision whereby crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations runs counter to international human rights law (arts. 1, 4, 12, 13, 14 and 16). The State party should continue to work to ensure that crimes against humanity, including acts of torture and enforced disappearance, are not subject to any statute of limitations, amnesty or immunity. In that respect, the Committee refers to its general comment No. 2 (2007), which states that: “amnesties or other impediments which preclude or indicate unwillingness to provide prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment violate the principle of nonderogability”, and its general comment No. 3 (2012), which states that: “amnesties for the crime of torture are incompatible with the obligations of States parties under the Convention, including under article 14. […] The Committee considers that amnesties for torture and ill-treatment pose impermissible obstacles to a victim in his or her efforts to obtain redress and contribute to a climate of impunity. The Committee therefore calls on States parties to remove any amnesties for torture or ill-treatment.” Independence of the judiciary 17. The Committee is concerned by the transfer, pursuant to a Supreme Court order which did not state the reasons on which it was based, of Judge Mariana Mota from the Seventh Criminal Court of Montevideo to the First Civil Court on 15 February 2013. It notes that, until that time, Judge Mota had been presiding over investigations that had been opened in connection with numerous cases of crimes against humanity committed in 1973– 1985. According to information supplied by the delegation, the transfer has been challenged and the case is under investigation in the administrative courts (art. 2). The State party should adopt effective measures to ensure the full independence and impartiality of judges and prosecutors by ensuring, inter alia, that the laws and regulations that govern such officials’ appointment, security of tenure and the manner in which they may be removed from the bench are in conformity with international standards, particularly the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary GE.14-04582 7