229. The Commission reiterates that in cases of serious violations of human rights, such as the commission of murder, forced disappearances, rape, torture, inhumane acts intended to cause death or serious harm to physical and mental integrity, States have a reinforced duty to investigate and clarify the facts.358 (c) Statutes of limitation for criminal action 230. Both the Court359 and the Commission360 have ascertained that the application of the statute of limitations for criminal actions violates the American Convention in cases of serious human rights violations, such as forced disappearances, the extrajudicial killing of persons and torture, which does not necessarily imply they took place in a context of massive and systematic violations. 361 231. In the case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia this principle was reiterated when it was established that “in certain circumstances, international law considers statutes of limitations to be inadmissible and inapplicable [,] along with amnesty laws and exemptions from liability, so as to maintain the State’s punitive power in effect for actions which, because of their seriousness, must be stopped and also to avoid their repetition”.362 232. Later on, in the cases of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brasil and Gelman v. Uruguay, involving serious human rights violations committed during military dictatorships, the Court reiterated its jurisprudence in the sense that “statute of limitation provisions […] that are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations to human rights such as torture, summary, extrajudicial, or arbitrary executions, and enforced disappearance are not admissible, all of which are prohibited for contravening irrevocable rights recognized by International Law of Human Rights.”363 This formulation on the prohibition of the statutes of limitations in cases of serious human rights violations has also been upheld by the Court in cases where such violations occurred in the context of domestic armed conflicts.364 233. In the instant case, the 1st Federal Criminal Court that decided the closing of the investigation into the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, also based its decision on the statutes of limitation of criminal actions. It stated that “murder, genocide, or even torture (…), are crimes not subject to statutes of limitations under the Constitution or other norms in current legislation.” 365 It also maintained that, when the facts took place, the Brazilian State had not ratified the Convention on war crimes and crimes against humanity. (supra párr. 127-128). 234. In the case Almonacid Arellano v. Chile the Court stated that, “even though the Chilean State has not ratified said Convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity], the Court believes that the non-applicability of statutes of limitations to crimes against humanity is a norm of General International Law (ius cogens), which is not created by said Convention, but it is acknowledged by it. Hence, the Chilean State must comply with this imperative rule.” 366 358 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Serie C No. 253, para. 298; IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152. Doc. 2. August 13, 2014. Para. 90 359 Corte I.D.H., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Serie C No. 75, para. 41. 360Cfr. IACHR, Report No 35/98, Case 12.019, Antonio Ferreira Braga, Brazil, July 19, 2008. 361 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Serie C no. 226. Para. 117. 362 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Serie C No. 217, para. 207. 363 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Serie C No. 219, para. 171; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Serie C No. 221, para. 225. 364 See I/A Court H.R. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Serie C No. 252. Para. 283. 365 Proceso 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 7, fls. 1394, Decisión de la Juez Federal sustituta Paula Mantovani Avelino, del 9 de enero de 2009. Anexo a la comunicación de los peticionarios de 11 de diciembre de 2014. 366 I/A Court H.R. Case of Almonacid Arellano, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Serie C No. 154, para. 153. 51