9 filed a habeas corpus appeal11 w ith the Fourth Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice, w hich decided to close the police investigation by virtue of the amnesty law , on October 13, 1992. 12 The Attorney General in the Public Prosecutor’ s Office appealed that decision through a special appeal, on January 28, 1993. 13 Nevertheless, on August 18, 1993, the Fifth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice rejected this appeal and upheld the decision to close the police investigation. 14 35. Subsequently, as has been laid out by both parties (see paragraphs 11 and 15, above), Brazil enacted Law No. 9.140/95, on December 4, 1995, in w hich it recognized its responsibility for the arbitrary detentions, torture, deaths, and forced disappearances that took place during the time of the military regime. 15 The Commission observes that Law No. 9.140/95 also created the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances (“ CEMDP” ), 16 and the CEMDP published its final report, “ Right to Memory and Truth,” in 2007. 17 In that report, the CEMDP recounts w hat it establishes as violations perpetrated against the alleged victim, including his arbitrary detention, torture, and subsequent death, as w ell as the faked suicide at the DOI/CODI. 18 36. On March 5, 2008, Eugênia August a Gonzaga Fávero and Marlon Alberto Weichert, prosecutors from the Federal Prosecutor’ s Office, asked the São Paulo Attorney General of the Republic to begin an investigation, through members of the Federal Public Prosecutor’ s Office, into the death of the alleged victim, based on the follow ing new facts: the conclusions of the final report of the CEMDP on the death of the alleged victim; the international human rights obligations stemming from the American Convention; the non-applicability of statutory limitations to the crimes committed against the alleged victim and the amnesty law ' s non-applicability to those crimes; and the fact that the original jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the crimes that purportedly w ere committed by federal agents—members of the army—w as the federal judicial system. 19 On January 9, 2009, the federal judge in charge issued a judgment in w hich she established that the prior decision adopted by the State Court of São Paulo constituted “ material res judicata, [and therefore] the punishability of the crime is irremediably extinguished.” She also determined that crimes against humanity do not have a valid definition under Brazilian domestic law and that the statutory limitation for the crime that may have been perpetrated against the alleged victim (aggravated homicide) had already expired. Consequently, the federal judge determined that the case should be closed. 20 37. Finally, the IACHR notes that the unconstitutionality of the Brazilian am nesty law , w ith regard to human rights violations perpetrated by agents of the State during the dictatorship, w as recently invoked in domestic court, through an action called Arguição de Descumprimento de 11 See Annex 11 of the initial petition. 12 See Annex 12 of the initial petition. 13 See Annex 13 of the initial petition. 14 See Annex 14 of t he initial petition. I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“ Guerrilla do Araguaia” ) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No 219, paras. 41 and 42. 15 16 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“ Guerrilla do Araguaia” ) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No 219, para. 43. See references to this final report in I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“ Guerrilla do Araguaia” ) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No 219, paras. 43, 44, 47, and 48, among others. 17 18 See Annex III of the State’ s response—Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances. Direito à Memória e à Verdade. Brasília: Secretaria Especial dos Direitos Humanos da Presidência da República, 2007. Pages 407 and 408. 19 See Annex 16 of the initial petition. 20 See Annex 19 of the initial petition.