25. Finally, in a communication dated September 25, 2015, the petitioners stated that the facts denounced in the present case had “not changed” since their last communication on November, 2014, and that no criminal complaint had been brought that would be the first step toward filing formal criminal charges and criminal prosecution. They observed that the inaction had thus “perpetuated decades of unending impunity.” The petitioners also reiterated that in Brazil, the amnesty law, the enforcement of “measures intended to preclude criminal liability, the statute of limitations and res judicata continued to be legal obstacles to the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the agents of the State who suppressed political dissent during the civil-military dictatorship in Brazil.” B. State 26. The State alleged that it had not committed any omission with respect to the facts denounced in the present case, and that at the domestic level, it had even formally recognized its responsibility for the 1975 arbitrary detention, torture and killing of Vladimir Herzog by agents of the State at the DOI-CODI/II Army facility. Here, the State made reference to the 1978 court ruling handed down by the federal justice system in which Brazil was held responsible for those events. The State further maintained that it had adopted a series of reparation and non-repetition measures related to Vladimir Herzog’s death. The State pointed out that in March 1996, the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances recognized the State’s responsibility for the death of Vladimir Herzog, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, I, “b” of Law No. 9.140/95, and that as a result, it had awarded pecuniary damages of R$100,000 (one hundred thousand reais) to his widow, Clarice Herzog. The State observed that Herzog’s death revealed the human rights violations committed against political prisoners during the military dictatorship opening the dialogue leading to Brazil’s democratization. 27. The State also referenced various initiatives taken with a view to preserving the right of Vladimir Herzog to be remembered, such as the launch in 2007 of the book titled “Right to Memory and Truth,” produced by the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances, which includes an account of the journalist’s professional career and the circumstances of his death. The State also observed that in 2009 it supported the creation of the “Vladimir Herzog Institute” with the goal of helping to protect the right to life and the right of access to justice. In December 2011, the Secretariat of Human Rights of the Office of the President of the Republic awarded the Vladimir Herzog Institute the national human rights prize, in the “Truth and Memory” category, for its project “Resisting Is Necessary” (Resistir é preciso), sponsored by the federal government. Moreover, the State pointed out that this project would be “compiling and disseminating information about the journalists and newspapers that fought the dictatorship between 1964 and 1979 –the year the Amnesty Law took effect.” 28. The State highlighted the creation of the National Truth Commission (hereinafter “CNV”) on May 16, 2012, under the Office of the Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic. It indicated that the Commission was instituted through Law 12.528 of November 18, 2011, for the purpose of “examining and shedding light on the serious human rights violations committed between 1946 and 1988” with a view to promoting national reconciliation and the realization of the right to memory and the historic truth. The State alleged that although Article 4, paragraph 4 of that Law mentions that the “activities of the National Truth Commission shall not be jurisdictional or prosecutorial in nature,” it understands that the CNV did have the authority “to identify the authorship [of violations] and make the results of its conclusions public.” 29. The State also reported that at the end of its mandate, on December 10, 2014 the National Truth Commission presented a three-volume Report that addressed cases like that of Vladimir Herzog. Here, Brazil pointed out that the report contained information on the circumstances of his death, the list of State agents that could be responsible for the “serious human rights violations” committed in his case, and his bibliography. In its final report, the CNV wrote that “there is no longer any doubt concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of Vladimir Herzog, who was unlawfully detained, tortured and killed by agents of the State in the Second Army’s DOI-CODI facilities in São Paulo in October 1975”. 30. The Brazilian State also reported that in 2012 the Second Chamber of Public Records of the São Paulo State Court [2ª Vara de Registros Públicos do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo] ordered 5