could be involved 241 because they have a monopoly of the use of force, and when there is a proven context of crimes against humanity. In addition, if the facts that violated human rights are not investigated properly, the public authorities would, in a sense, be facilitating them, which could involve the international responsibility of the State. 242 244. Based on the fact that the crimes perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog occurred in a context of crimes against humanity, in violation of a peremptory norm of international law that, already at the time had erga omnes effects, once the State became aware of the acts that constituted torture, it should have opened, ex officio, the pertinent investigation in order to establish the corresponding individual responsibilities. 243 iii) Actions taken by the State in this case 245. The Court will now make a brief analysis of the initiatives taken by the State and the members of Vladimir Herzog’s family before and after the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court recalls that the facts prior to December 10, 1998, serve to determine the situation after that date on which Brazil accepted the Court’s competence to determine possible violations of the American Convention on Human Rights. a. IPM No. 1173-75 246. Owing to the public outcry following Mr. Herzog’s death, the Second Army opened an inquiry in the military criminal jurisdiction (IPM No. 1173-75) on October 30, 1975. This investigation – widely characterized as fraudulent – resulted in the version that Vladimir Herzog had committed suicide by hanging himself. Accordingly, the military justice system closed the case in February 1976 (supra paras. 128). In this regard, the State acknowledged before this Court that this military criminal investigation “cannot be considered a valid attempt to investigate the facts, and it was not appropriate to meet the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish.” 244 247. Although this action by the State does not fall within the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the Court recalls its consistent case law on the restriction of the military jurisdiction’s competence to examine facts that constitute human rights violations, in the sense that, under the democratic rule of law, the military criminal jurisdiction must have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed at the protection of special legal interests linked to the functions inherent to the armed forces. 245 Consequently, the Court has indicated that the military jurisdiction should only try members of the military forces on active duty for the perpetration of crimes or misdemeanors that, owing to their nature, violate the specific legal interests of the military forces. 246 The fact that the individuals involved are members of the armed forces or that the events occurred within a military establishment do not signify, per se, that military justice should intervene. This is because, owing to the nature of the crime 241 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 177. 242 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 145, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 177 Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 225, and Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, para. 362. 243 244 Answering brief of the State, para. 15 (merits file, folio 319). Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 338, para. 148. 245 246 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, para. 117, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, para. 148. 61