jurisdiction was primarily the responsibility of the State concerned in accordance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States, combating impunity for the most serious crimes was an obligation set out in numerous international treaties. Universal jurisdiction should be exercised only in full compliance with international law; it should be subsidiary to domestic jurisdiction and limited to specific crimes; and it must not be exercised arbitrarily or in order to fulfil interests other than those of justice.” 352 302. Bearing in mind the aforementioned precedents, the Inter-American Court considers that when crimes against humanity are perpetrated, the community of States is entitled to apply the universal jurisdiction in order to ensure the effectiveness of the absolute prohibition of these crimes established in international law. Nevertheless, the Court also recognizes that, at the current stage of development of international law, the use of universal jurisdiction is based on a criterion of political, criminal and procedural reasonableness and not on a hierarchical arrangement, because the jurisdiction of the territory where the crime was committed is always preferable. 303. In this regard, when considering whether to exercise the universal jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of crimes such as those in this case, States must comply with certain requirements of customary international law: (i) that the crime to be prosecuted is a crime under international law (war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, slavery, genocide), or torture; (ii) that the State in which the crime was committed has not proved that it has made an effort in the judicial sphere to punish those responsible, or its domestic laws prevent the initiation of such efforts owing to the application of devices that exclude responsibility, and (iii) that it should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner or to satisfy interests other than those of justice, in particular, for political purposes. v) Predictability/principle of legality 304. The Court bears in mind that the laws of Brazil, and their interpretation by the relevant branch of the judicial system, understand that the absence of their express definition in the law is an insurmountable obstacle for the investigation and punishment of the acts that originated this case. 353 Nevertheless, the Court is examining this contentious case from the standpoint of international law and its peremptory norms in situations that involve the most serious State crimes that violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law. The Court notes that this case does not refer to an ordinary murder or an isolated act of torture, but to the torture and murder of a person in the custody of the State, as part of a plan established by the most senior State authorities to eliminate the opponents of the dictatorship. This policy was not only extremely violent, but was also evident in the cover-up practiced by medical officers, experts, prosecutors and judges, among others, who ensured its impunity. 305. To counter the argument of legal uncertainty owing to the application of international law without a corresponding domestic norm validating the former, it should be indicated that all the acts committed against Vladimir Herzog were already prohibited by the laws of Brazil. United Nations, General Assembly. Summary record of the twelfth session of the seventieth session, A/C.6/70/SR.12, November 5, 2015, para. 62. Available at https://undocs.org/A/C.6/70/SR.12. In addition, the State confirmed that “[i]ts courts could exercise universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide and the crimes, such as torture, which Brazil had a treaty obligation to suppress” (para. 64). However, it indicated that “[u]nder Brazilian law, it was necessary to enact national legislation to enable the exercise of universal jurisdiction over a specific type of crime; such jurisdiction could not be exercised on the basis of customary international law alone without violating the principle of legality.” 352 353 In this regard, see expert opinions of Maria Auxiliadora Minahim (evidence file, folios 13987 to 14034) and Alberto Zacharias Toron during the hearing. 80