involved a crime against humanity with no statutory limitations and not covered by amnesty; and based on the Brazilian State’s international obligations, including those established in the American Convention. 18. According to the petitioners, the representative of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office responsible for the criminal section disagreed with his colleagues and sought to have the case closed. The petitioners indicate that the process was closed based on a decision issued January 9, 2009, by the federal judge in charge. In that judgment, the federal judge recognized that the original jurisdiction belonged to the federal justice system; however, she determined that the decision adopted earlier by the São Paulo State Court constituted material res judicata and that the statutory limitations for the crimes perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog had expired. The petitioners observed that the material res judicata presumably established by the Superior Court’s decision and the improper enforcement of the statute of limitations would constitute further impediments to prosecution of the alleged human rights violations. 19. Thus, according to the petitioners, the enforcement of the Amnesty Law and of the provisions of domestic law would have the effect of depriving Vladimir Herzog and his next of kin of judicial protection and of their right to a hearing by a competent authority. It would also prevent them from obtaining proper reparations. They further stated that the impunity that attends the facts of this case because of the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate also constitutes a continuing violation of articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to the general duty established in Article 1.1 thereof. According to the petitioners, this situation is compounded by the fact that the provision “expressly” prohibiting crimes against humanity is jus cogens, and requires that those responsible be investigated and punished. 20. The petitioners also argued that if the positive measures necessary to give practical effect [effet utile] to the provisions of the American Convention and to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court are not adopted, the State would also incur international responsibility by its omission. They pointed out that such a violation would be permanent and last until a diligent, impartial and effective investigation of the facts is conducted, with a view to identifying, prosecuting and punishing all those responsible. 21. Here, the petitioners made reference to the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the case of Gomes Lund et al. where, according to the petitioners, the Court held that Law 6.683/79 cannot continue to constitute an obstacle to the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations. The petitioners also observed that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had held that this same operative paragraph of the judgment would have effects for other serious human rights violations that happened in Brazil. Thus, according to the petitioners, this would apply to the case of Vladimir Herzog, inasmuch as his torture and arbitrary execution constitute serious violations of human rights. They also observed that the legal obstacles that the national authorities used in the case of Vladimir Herzog were the same as those that the Inter-American Court had rejected in its judgment in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. According to the petitioners, that judgment had become international res judicata and therefore binding upon all organs of the State. 22. According to the petitioners, the continued impunity and lack of complete information concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of Vladimir Herzog prevented his family and society from knowing the truth of what happened, in violation of the right to the truth. 23. The petitioners allege that the circumstances of the events denounced in the present case caused harm to the mental and moral integrity of Vladimir Herzog’s mother, Zora Herzog who, according to the petitioners, died on November 18, 2006, his widow Clarice Herzog, and his two sons, André and Ivo Herzog. 24. As for the Vladimir Herzog’s sons, André and Ivo Herzog, who at the time of the events of this case would have been seven and nine years old, respectively, the petitioners alleged that the “negative impact” caused by the arbitrary detention, torture and death of Herzog, and the harm caused by the alleged impunity, were “particularly hard” because they were children at the time. 4