1998, the date on which it accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. In this regard, the Court will examine every exclusion of responsibility alleged by Brazil to justify the failure to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, in order to establish their incompatibility with crimes against humanity in this case. 259. First, it is important to reiterate, pursuant to the Court’s previous considerations (supra paras. 211 to 228) that the peremptory norm of jus cogens prohibiting crimes against humanity existed and was binding for the State of Brazil at the time of the facts. The Court repeats that the main consequence of a peremptory norm of international law is that it does not admit any decision to the contrary and that it can only be amended by a subsequent norm of general international law of the same nature. The second consequence of a peremptory norm is that it involves obligations erga omnes. As previously indicated, the first obligation of States under this norm is to prevent this type of crime from occurring. Consequently, States must ensure that such conducts are criminally prosecuted and the authors punished. In the same way, the absence of a formal definition in domestic law of conducts that reach the threshold of crimes against humanity does not exclude the person who committed the act from his liability under international law and the universal jurisdiction in relation to the perpetrators of such crimes (supra para. 231). Other consequences that will not be examined in detail in this judgment are the non-applicability of immunities and the excuse of “due obedience.” Furthermore, the Court will not refer to the non-derogability of this prohibition in states of emergency. 260. Added to these basic clarifications, the Court has underlined the obligation to investigate and punish serious human rights violations and eventual crimes against humanity. 254 In light of the foregoing, the Court will now examine the reasons why, in this case, the State of Brazil is prevented from using devices that permit the impunity of crimes against humanity, such as statutory limitations, the principle of ne bis in idem, amnesty laws, and any other similar provision that excludes responsibility. i) Imprescriptibility of crimes against humanity 261. The application of statutory limitations in criminal matters results in the extinction of the possibility of punishment owing to the passage of time and, in general, limits the State’s punitive power to prosecute unlawful conduct and punish its authors. It is a guarantee that must be duly respected by a judge with regard to anyone accused of a crime. Nevertheless, exceptionally, 255 the application of a statute of limitations to the criminal action is inadmissible and inapplicable in the case of serious human rights violations under international law. The Court’s consistent case law has always indicated this. 256 262. In addition, the non-applicability of statutory limitations is founded on the fact that certain contexts of institutional violence – added to certain obstacles to the investigation – may result in significant difficulties for the investigation of some human rights violations. 257 254 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 137. The Court has considered that “serious human rights violations” have their own connotation and consequences. Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 19, 2012, para. 20. 255 256 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, para. 110; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 294; Case of Albán Cornejo v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171. para. 111; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, párr 117. 257 “The protection of human rights against particularly serious, inadmissible violations that might go unpunished – thus diluting the duty to administer criminal justice stemming from the guarntee obligation of the State – has caused certain facts to be excluded from the ordinary statute of limitations system, even a more strict statute of limitations 65