open a police investigation. However, a few months later, Mira Grancieri filed an application
for habeas corpus in favor of himself, which was unanimously declared admissible by the São
Paulo Court of Justice in October 1992. Consequently, the police investigation was closed in
compliance with the Amnesty Law. In January 1993, the São Paulo Prosecutor General
appealed the decision. However, on August 18, 1993, the Superior Court of Justice confirmed
the first instance decision. The justices alleged procedural questions to deny the appeal (supra
paras. 140 to 145).
251. The Court does not have competence ratione temporis to determine a violation of the
American Convention in relation to these facts. However, it is important to point out that the
decision of the São Paulo Court of Justice was issued after the entry into force of the American
Convention for the Brazilian State (the Convention was ratified on September 25, 1992). In
addition, the Court recalls its considerations on Law No. 6683/79 in the judgment in the case
of Gomes Lund et al.:
174. Given its evident incompatibility with the American Convention, the provisions of
the Brazilian Amnesty Law that prevent the investigation and punishment of serious
human rights violations lack legal effect. Consequently, they cannot continue to represent
an obstacle to the investigation of the facts in this case, or for the identification and
punishment of those responsible; nor can they have a similar or equal impact on other
cases of serious violations of human rights recognized in the American Convention that
have occurred in Brazil
175. Regarding the parties’ arguments in relation to whether what is involved is an
amnesty, a self-amnesty or a “political agreement,” the Court notes, as revealed by the
criteria reiterated in the […] case, that the incompatibility with the Convention includes
amnesties of serious human rights violations and is not limited merely to those known
as, “self-amnesties.” Likewise, as indicated previously, the Court abides by its own ratio
legis, rather than the adoption proceeding and the authority that issued the Amnesty
Law: not to leave unpunished serious violations of international law committed by the
military regime. The incompatibility of amnesty laws with the American Convention in
cases of gross violations of human rights does not arise from a formal matter, such as
their origin, but rather from the substantive aspect, because they violate the rights
established in Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, of the Convention
d. Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances
252. The Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances (CEMDP), created by
Law No. 9140/95, identified – among other matters – those persons who, owing to their
participation or because they had been accused of participating in political activities, died from
unnatural causes in police establishments or similar locations, or who died as a result of acts
of torture perpetrated by law enforcement agents. The CEMDP granted compensation to
Vladimir Herzog’s family for the facts that happened to him and concluded that, indeed, Mr.
Herzog had died in the São Paulo DOI/CODI. The official final report of this Commission was
published in 2007 (supra paras. 146 to 151).
253. That version of the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog was published by a State
body which, also, identified patterns of widespread and systematic institutional violence by
public agents linked to the DOI/CODI, the Army and police forces during the military
dictatorship. Based on this information, the Court considers that the State had the obligation
to conduct the pertinent investigation to establish the respective individual responsibilities. 252
Already, at that time, the modus operandi of the military regime’s security forces was known
252
Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 225.
63