that the murder of Vladimir Herzog has all the characteristics of the so-called crimes against humanity, and can be fully characterized as such.” Nevertheless, he understood that the law did not include a definition that characterized it in this way. 117 156. The prosecutor also considered that the Amnesty Law was not applicable to the case. In his words: “The law is quite clear. Amnesty is granted for political crimes, and crimes related to political crimes and electoral crimes. The murder of Vladimir Herzog may be considered an inadmissible political crime, never an admissible one.” He also indicated that the amnesty did not extinguish the possibility of punishing the crime committed. 118 However, he concluded that it was not possible to conduct the criminal investigation, because substantial res judicata existed. 119 Moreover, a statute of limitations was applicable as regards the possible punishment 120 whether or not the judge had jurisdiction. 121 157. Regarding the application of statutory limitations to the criminal action, he considered that the fact that Brazil was a party to the Pact of San José did not necessarily mean that the crime was not subject to the statute of limitations in this specific case, because the treaty “does not establish clearly any hypothesis of imprescriptibility for the past.” In addition, it was his opinion that international custom “cannot overrule domestic proceedings” and that imprescriptibility could not be established based on international custom, because that would lead to lack of legal certainty. 122 158. Lastly, he understood that there was no incompatibility between the domestic organ’s decision and the international obligations of the State, because they were two different systems. 123 159. In response to his request, the federal judge, Paula Mantovani Avelino, accepted the arguments of the Public Prosecution Service, understanding that res judicata existed in the case and this made it impossible to continue to the investigation since the criminal action had extinguished: “Since substantial res judicata exists, the possibility of punishing the crime has terminated irremediably and this, in itself, would prevent opening a new proceeding to investigate the same facts.” 124 She also affirmed that the acts perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog should not be considered crimes against humanity because such crimes had not been defined by law at the time of the events. Her ruling also indicated that “the domestic legal order in force does not admit the creation of crimes by subordinate legislation, provisional measure, or legislative decree or decision; thus, a fortiori it is not possible to conclude that a custom may be used to this end, however entrenched this is.” 125 117 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folio 4541). 118 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folios 4536 to 4539). 119 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folio 4525). 120 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folios 4514 to 4563); Statement made during the hearing by Marlon Weichert. 121 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folios 4527 and 4528). Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folios 4539 a 4561). 122 123 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Regional Prosecutor of the Republic’s request to file the case (evidence file, folio 4552). 124 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Decision of the Federal Judge of January 9, 2009 (evidence file, folio 4574). 125 Proceeding No. 2008.61.81.013434-2, Decision of the Federal Judge of January 9, 2009 (evidence file, folio 4577). 34