d) Ensure full access and capacity to act to the victims and their families at all stages of these investigations, pursuant to domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention, and e) Ensure that the investigations and proceedings based on the facts of this case are at all times conducted in the ordinary jurisdiction. C. Measures of non-repetition i) Non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity 373. The Commission asked that the State take into account that the crimes against humanity that occurred in this case, such as torture, are not subject to statutory limitations. 374. The representatives asked the Court to determine that the State must take the necessary legislative measures to adapt its domestic law to the international parameters for the protection of the individual, and ensure that no statutory limitations can be applied to the crime of torture. 375. The State considered that it was inappropriate and unnecessary to enact a law, because such a law could only establish an obligation of means, but not of results. Furthermore, the enactment of laws depended on the vote of the democratically elected representatives. It also asserted that the Brazilian Senate was processing a bill to amend the Brazilian Penal Code in order to establish that the crime of torture was not subject to statutory limitations or amnesties, and bail could not be granted. The Executive had also submitted a bill that codified the crime of genocide, and defined crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of justice as established by the International Criminal Court. 376. Regarding the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity, in Chapter VII-1, the Court concluded that the application of the statute of limitations in this case represented a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, because it was decisive in maintaining the facts that had been verified in impunity. The Court has also verified the imprescriptible nature of crimes against humanity in international law (supra para. 214). In addition, the Court recalls that, according to its consistent case law, 405 no statutory limitations can be applied to crimes that involve gross violations of human rights and crimes against humanity (supra para. 261). Consequently, Brazil may not apply statutory limitations or any other mechanism that excludes responsibility to this and other similar cases, in the terms of paragraphs 311 and 312 of this judgment. Consequently, the Court considers that Brazil must take the most appropriate measures, in keeping with its institutions, to recognize, without exception, the imprescriptibility of actions filed based on crimes against humanity and crimes under international law, pursuant to this judgment and to the relevant international standards. D. Measures of satisfaction i) Acknowledgement of international responsibility by the State 377. The Commission asked that the State acknowledge its responsibility for the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, and for the anguish caused to his family. See inter alia, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 106; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 112, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 111. 405 95