7 21. Similarly, attention should be paid to the role played by the Nuremberg Charter in establishing the elements which characterize crimes against humanity. The existence of an international custom was recognized, as an expression of international law prohibiting such crimes (Case Almonacid, paragraph 96). Unlike in this case, Almonacid referred to a single attack, thus harder to classify as a crime against humanity, and even so, this Court established the precedent. 22. Former President of the Court, A.A. Cançado Trindade, in his separate vote in the case of Almonacid, recalled that the configuration of crimes against humanity is a manifestation of the universal juridical conscience, of its rapid response to crimes that affect humanity as a whole. He stressed that with the passage of time, the rules that came to define “crimes against humanity” emanated from customary international law, and unfolded, conceptually, later, in the framework of international humanitarian law, and more recently in the domain of jus cogens, of imperative law (Almonacid, paragraph 28). 23. The crimes of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial summary executions, and torture perpetrated by the State to systematically repress the Guerrilha do Araguaia are examples of crimes against humanity. As such, they deserve different treatment, that is, their judgment can not be prevented by the passage of time, such as statute of limitations or provisions of amnesty norms. 24. The General Assembly of the Organization of the United Nations adopted on November 26, 1968, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. It should be noted that it is not a characteristic of this Convention that it is the creator-innovator of Law, but rather that it is conciliatory, reason for which, though not ratified by the State, should be applied by the State. In the same sense, in 1974, the European Council has drafted the European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes. 25. They did so not by an imposition of negotiation talks. It was not the result, then, of conclusions reached by the process of negotiating, signing, ratifying and parliamentary referendum that presupposes the adoption of any international treaty. For the sake of the truth, such supranational instruments only recognize that which international custom has determined. 26. Also, in what regards the 1969 Vienna Convention, a multilateral treaty to consolidate the usual rules of conclusion of treaties between sovereign states took place. Since its effective entry into international force in 1980, it took 29 long years until Brazil internalized the Convention, coming to do so with the imposition of two reservations to the terms of the Convention. 27. On the other hand, 42 years after its adoption at the international level, Brazil remains without proper ratification of the Convention on the NonApplicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, despite having signed it. That omission was certainly the result of political pressure from the group of soldiers who carried out the atrocities described in this proceeding. However, this lack of ratification is overcome, since, as the Court understood, its mandatory compliance is derived from international custom and not from the act of ratification. The applicability of these crimes comes as a category of general international law, which is not born from the Convention, but it is recognized in it (Case Almonacid, paragraphs 152 and 153).