dictatorship and, partiularly, within an acknowledged systematic pattern of represssive actions against the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB). It also indicated that the actions were aimed at punishing the supposed political opinions and activism of the journalist and had the effect of threatening and intimidating other journalists who were critical of the military regime. 170. It considered that the impunity and concealment of the truth in this case had had prejudicial effects on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, in general, and on the right to information in the country. In the Commission’s opinion, freedom of expression had been a specific objective of the military repression in all the countries of the Southern Cone, by co-option and by direct control of the media, and also by violently attacking independent journalists and critics of the regime, resulting in detention, torture and murder in many cases. 171. The Commission recalled that, in cases of torture, the State must open an investigation, ex officio, and with due diligence, conducted by independent authorities who should not have any hierarchical or institutional connection to the accused. 172. In this regard, the Commission asserted that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate, with due diligence, the facts that violated the human rights of Vladimir Herzog. In its opinion, the investigation into his death conducted in the military jurisdiction in 1975 prevented the clarification of the facts and violated the right of the victim’s family to know the truth of what happened. 173. The Inter-American Commission recognized that, following the transition to democracy, the Brazilian State had taken measures that had contributed to clarifying the historical truth of the unlawful detention, torture and death of the journalist, Vladimir Herzog. Nevertheless, the “historical truth” contained in the reports produced by the Truth Commission did not complete or substitute for the State’s obligation to ensure that individual or State responsibilities were determined by the courts in appropriate proceedings, and it was therefore the State’s duty to open and expedite criminal investigations to determine the corresponding responsibilities pursuant to Articles 1(1), 8 and 25 of the Convention. 174. The Commission indicated that, in this case, the Brazilian Judiciary had validated the interpretation of Law No. 6,683/79 (Amnesty Law). Consequently, the Commission considered that the judicial authorities that took part in the investigation into the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog had prevented the identification, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible, and had failed to exercise the proper control of conventionality to which they were obliged following ratification of the American Convention, in accordance with the international obligations of Brazil under international law. 175. In addition, the Commission recalled that the application of amnesty laws or other measures to exclude liability that prevented access to justice in cases of gross human rights violations had two effects. On the one hand, they rendered ineffective the obligation of States to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the American Convention and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to their jurisdiction without any discrimination. On the other hand, they prevented access to information about the facts and circumstances that surrounded the violation of a fundamental right and eliminated the most effective measure to ensure the exercise of human rights – that is, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible – because they prevented implementation of the judicial remedies of the domestic jurisdiction. 176. It indicated that, in 2009, a federal criminal court had ruled to close the investigation into the facts of this case, considering that the closure ordered by the state courts in 1993, in application of the Amnesty Law, had acquired the status of res judicata. Thus, the Commission 38