235. In similar terms, the Inter-American Commission held in its report on the case of Julia Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) that although the Brazilian State had not ratified the Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity, the obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity is a norm of ius cogens, so applying the prescription in these cases is a violation of that mandatory rule by the State. 367 236. The Commission finds no reason to depart from this criterion. In this case, which entails serious human rights violations, the application of the statute of limitations has hindered the investigation and punishment of crimes committed against Vladimir Herzog and constituted an obstacle to effective access to justice and truth for the victim's next of kin, in clear non-compliance by the State of a mandatory international obligation. 237. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the failure to investigate serious human rights violations committed in this case, in a context of systematic patterns, reveal a non-compliance of international obligations by the State. Because of its interpretation and application of Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law), Brazil has failed to fulfill the obligation to adapt its domestic law to the Convention, contained in Article 2 thereof, related to articles 8.1, 25 and 1.1 of the same treaty. Likewise, the Commission considers that the failure to investigate the facts, and to prosecute and punish those responsible, derived both from the interpretation and application of Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law), and the application of the concepts of res judicata and statutory limitation of criminal action violate the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection under Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, related to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, and provisions 1, 6 and 8 the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Clarice (wife), André and Ivo (sons), Zora (mother deceased on November 18, 2006), all surnamed Herzog. 238. On the merits stage, the petitioners alleged that after Brazil ratified the American Convention on July 20, 1989, the failure to investigate the facts and to prosecute and punish those responsible for the arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog, have also caused the non-compliance of the obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of that treaty. 239. In this regard, the IACHR reiterates that the lack of due diligence in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for the torture and violent death of a person is a component of the establishment of the State's international responsibility. 368 Indeed, part of the general obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention is the specific duty to investigate cases where human rights violations are alleged; that is, that duty is set forth by Article 1.1 of the Convention regarding the right that must be protected or guaranteed. Under the inter-American system, non-compliance of this duty constitutes a breach of the general obligation to guarantee the rights established in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, regarding the rights to life and/or personal integrity, depending on the consequences of the act of violence, and the right of access to justice recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the treaty. 369 240. In this regard, it is sufficient to reiterate that, once the American Convention was ratified, the actions initiated by the State on justice have not been effective to comply with its duty to investigate with due diligence the facts of this case, prosecute and punish those responsible to the detriment of the rights to truth and access to justice of Vladimir Herzog’s family, under articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention. Thus, for the purpose of this case, the Commission does not consider it necessary to make a separate determination of the alleged “continued” violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 13 of the American Convention in this case. 367 Demanda de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos contra la República Federativa de Brasil. Case 11,552 - Julia Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), of March 26, 2009, para. 186. 368 Cfr. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Serie C No. 99, para. 112; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, , para. 97, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, para. 23. 369 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Serie C No. 99, para. 112; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 97, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, para. 23. 52