that Vladimir Herzog’s death certificate [assento de óbito] be corrected. According to the State, the Judge ordered that the record be corrected to show that Vladimir Herzog had died of injuries and mistreatment suffered while in Army custody. 31. The State indicated that in its conclusions and recommendations concerning the case of Vladimir Herzog, the CNV had recommended that the criminal investigations be continued with a view to identifying and establishing the responsibility of the agents involved. In this regard, Brazil indicated that the CNV’s final report had recommended establishment of a permanent body, with the authority to follow up on the CNV’s actions and recommendations. Added that the CNV’s efforts serve not just to prevent a recurrence of such violations, but also support the strengthen of criminal investigation procedures and the criminal cases brought by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. 32. According to the State, three bills currently before the National Congress and two constitutionality control cases now before the Federal Supreme Court (hereinafter the “STF) are seeking amendment of Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law). 33. On the matter of legislative reform, the State reported that with the bills known as PL 573/2011 the Legislative Branch was working toward an “authentic interpretation” of the provision contained in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Law, to ensure that the concept of “related crime” “[d]oes not include crimes committed by public officials, be they military or civilian, against persons who committed or are suspected of having committed political crimes.” For its part, the PL 7.357/2014 seeks to exclude from the Amnesty Law "[t]he public agents, militaries and civilians who have done crimes of torture, kidnapping, private detention, summary execution, hiding body or assault." On April 9, 2014 it was determined that it was attached to the PL 573/2011. Reference was also made to the bill referred to as PL 237/2013 which defines the expression “related crime” contained in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Amnesty Law in the manner described above, and establishes that the statutory limitation or other bases for extinction of the ability of the State to enforce punishment, shall not apply to crimes not included in the legally granted amnesty. 34. As for the cases before the Federal Supreme Court, the State indicated that there are two cases currently before the Supreme Court (STF) claiming non-compliance with a fundamental precept (ADPF) [“Arguição de Preceito Fundamental”]. 35. The State reported that on April 20, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) delivered a judgment in ADPF 153, but the Brazilian Bar Association [“Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil”] filed a motion for clarification [“embargos de declaração”] that has not yet been decided. Likewise, claimed that on March 21, 2011, the Bar Association petitioned the STF asking that when delivering its decision on the motion for clarification, it address “specifically the enforceability, in [Brazil], of the judgment delivered by the InterAmerican Court on November 24, 2010 in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. 36. Brazil indicated that ADPF 320 was filed in May 2014, seeking a finding from the STF declaring that the Amnesty Law, “in general, does not apply to crimes involving serious human rights violations committed by public officials, be they military or civilian, against persons who committed or are suspected of having committed political crimes; and, in particular, that the Law does not apply to the authors of continuing or permanent crimes, since the effects of this provision expired on August 15, 1979 (Article 1).” The ADPF also requested that the Brazilian State comply “fully” with the twelve operative paragraphs of the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. 37. The State reported that the ADPF 320 was accumulated to ADPF 153 due to the subject identity between the two processes. 38. According to the State, pursuant to the resolution points 3 and 9 of the judgment that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office had since adopted an institutional standard of “investigating and bringing criminal cases against State agents involved in serious human rights violations that occurred during 6