3 9. The petitioners point out that the civil action fully established—by means of a judgment issued on October 28, 1978 —that the alleged victim w as arbitrarily detained, tortured, and killed on DOI/CODI premises in São Paulo. Nevertheless, the petitioners contend that subsequent to that decision, on August 28, 1979, Law No. 6.683 (“ the amnesty law ” or “ Law 6.683/79” ) w as passed, w hich did aw ay w ith criminal responsibility for all individuals w ho had commit ted “ political or related crimes” in the period from September 2, 1961, to August 15, 1979. 2 The petitioners contend that to this day, the amnesty law in question continues to represent an obstacle for the criminal prosecution of serious human rights violations, such as the acts alleged in this petition, and that it is therefore incompatible w ith the State’ s obligations under the American Convention. 10. Despite the foregoing, the petitioners describe several subsequent attempts made to bring about the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the death of the alleged victim. In this regard, they observe that the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor’ s Office asked the Civil Police to begin an investigation into the alleged victim' s death in 1992, aft er an article w as published in the magazine Isto É, Senhor, on March 25, 1992. In the story, a DOI/CODI official w ho w ent by the alias “ Captain Ramiro” stated that he had interrogated the alleged victim in the aforesaid military establishment and that he w as involved in his death. The petitioners state that “ Captain Ramiro” filed a habeas corpus appeal before the Fourth Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice, w hich determined that the police investigation should be closed because of the amnesty law . That decision w as reportedly appealed by the São Paulo State Public Prosecutor’ s Office, but w as upheld by the Superior Court of Justice on August 18, 1993. 11. The petitioners observe that, more recently, several supervening events have shed new light on the human rights violations committed during the Brazilian dictatorship. These include the enactment, in 1995, of Law No. 9.140/95, in w hich the State recognized its responsibility for the deaths and disappearances that took place during the time of the military regime; the subsequent creation of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances; the publication, in 2007, of the Special Commission’ s report , “ Right to Memory and Truth” ; and the judgment handed dow n on November 24, 2010, by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“ the Inter-American Court” ) w ith respect to the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (" Guerrilha do Araguaia" ), among others. The petitioners stress that in the book “ Right to Memory and Truth,” the State recognized its responsibility for the alleged victim’ s death by torture. 12. The petitioners observe that, based on the aforementioned new facts and based on international law , on March 5, 2008, members of the São Paulo Federal Public Prosecutor’ s Office— w hich lacked criminal jurisdiction—asked the São Paulo Attorney General of the Republic to instruct civil servants in the criminal section of the Federal Public Prosecutor’ s Office to begin an investigation into the alleged victim’ s death. According to the petitioners, that request w as based on the fact that the federal justice system w ould have jurisdiction over that investigation, as the DOI/CODI agents w ere federal agents; that this involved a crime against humanity w ith no statutory limitations and not covered by amnesty; and based on the international obligations of the Brazilian State, including those established in the American Convention. 13. According to the petitioners, the representative of the Federal Public Prosecutor’ s Office responsible for the criminal section disagreed w ith his colleagues and sought to have the case closed. The petitioners indicate that the process w as closed based on a decision issued January 12, 2009, by the federal judge in charge. In that judgment, the federal judge recognized that the original jurisdiction belonged to the federal justice system; how ever, she determined that the decision 2 The petitioners cite Article http://w w w .planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L6683.htm. 1 of the amnesty law , available at: