311. In this case, the Court concludes that the State’s jurisdictional authorities who closed the investigation in 2008 and 2009 failed to exercise control of conventionality. Also, in 2010, the decision of the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the validity of their interpretation of the Amnesty Law without considering Brazil’s international obligations derived from international law, particularly those established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. The Court finds it opportune to recall that the obligation to comply with international obligations, voluntarily assumed, corresponds to a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of States, supported by domestic and international jurisprudence, according to which States must abide by their international treaty-based obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). As this Court has already indicated and as established in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” The treaty-based obligations of the States Parties are binding for all their powers and organs, which must ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention and their practical effects (effet utile) in the sphere of their domestic laws. 366 312. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Inter-American Court concludes that, owing to the failure to investigate, and also prosecute and punish those responsible for the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog committed in a widespread and systematic context of attacks on the civilian population, Brazil violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and in relation to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Zora, Clarice, André and Ivo Herzog. In addition, the Court concludes that Brazil has failed to comply with its obligation to adapt its domestic laws to the Convention, as established in Article 2 thereof, in relation to Articles 8(1), 25 and 1(1) of this treaty and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT due to the application of Amnesty Law No. 6683/79 and other methods of excluding responsibility prohibited by international law in cases of crimes against humanity, pursuant to paragraphs 208 to 310 of this judgment VII-2 RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 313. The Commission argued that it was not necessy to make a separate analysis and to determine an autonomous violation of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 13 of the American Convention based on the failure to comply with the duty to guarantee the truth; in the Commission’s opinion that right was already protected under Articles 8(1) and 25. 314. Despite this, the Commission alleged that the right to the truth cannot be restricted by legislative measures such as the enactment of amnesty laws, statutory limitations and res judicata, among others. 366 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC- 14/94, of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 394, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 104. Also, cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59, considerandum 3; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2010, considerandum 3, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of September 1, 2010, considerandum 5. 83