addition, it indicated that it had been shown that statutory limitations, res judicata, the principles of the non-retroactivity of criminal laws, and non bis in idem, conform to the Convention. 371. The Court recalls that, in Chapter VII-1, it declared the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection owing to the failure to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts of this case. Taking this into account, as well as its case law, the Court establishes that the State should conduct an effective criminal investigation into the facts of this case in order to clarify them, determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and apply effectively the punishments and consequences established by law. 403 372. On this basis, and as in other cases it has examined, 404 and considering the nature of the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog as a crime against humanity and the legal consequences of such conducts under international law (supra paras. 230 to 232), the Court establishes that the State must re-open, with due diligence, the appropriate investigation and criminal proceedings for the events of October 25, 1975, in order to identify prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, within a reasonable time. In particular, the State must: a) Conduct the pertinent investigations taking into account the pattern of human rights violations that existed at the time (supra paras. 238 to 240), so that the pertinent investigations and proceedings are conducted taking into consideration the complexity of these facts and the context in which they occurred; b) Determine the perpetrators and masterminds of the torture and death of Vladimir Herzog. Moreover, since a crime against humanity is involved, the State may not apply the Amnesty Law to benefit the perpetrators, or any other similar provision, statute of limitations, res judicata, ne bis in idem or any similar means of excluding responsibility to waive this obligation, in the terms of paragraphs 260 to 310 of this judgment; c) Ensure that: (i) the competent authorities conduct the corresponding investigations ex officio and that, to this end, they have available and use all the necessary scientific and logistical resources to gather and process the evidence and, in particular, have authority to access the pertinent documentation and information to investigate the facts denounced and conduct promptly those actions and inquiries that are essential to clarify what happened to the person who died and those who disappeared in this case; (ii) those who take part in the investigation, including the victims’ families, the witnesses and the agents of justice, have due guarantees for their safety, and (iii) the authorities procedure. refrain from obstructing the investigation 403 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 174 and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 256. Among others, cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, para. 112; Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 212; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, paras. 225 to 226; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, para. 292, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 345, para. 28. 404 94