6 9.140/95 “signed the responsibility of the State for the deaths, guaranteed compensatory reparation, and principally, made official the historical recognition that these Brazilians [...] died fighting as political opponents of a regime that arose violating the democratic constitutionality erected in 1946.”426 16. Thus, given that the Commission noted the cited recognition, the representatives considered that this has full legal effects to the proceedings before the Court and requested that the Court note the admission of the facts and acceptance of responsibility made by Brazil, and that its reach be incorporated into this Judgment. They stressed, however, the limited stamp of said factual recognition and fought for more thorough analysis of the fact in order to obtain statements of factual recognition of the State. 17. The Court accepted the recognition of the facts and acceptance of responsibility made by the State and recognized their efforts and good faith at present, however it understood that such recognition did not occur in a full and effective manner in regard to the violations brought to be considered by the Court. Instead, the State’s acknowledgment holds significant limitations, so much so that its current defense is currently that of not permitting the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for the implementation of the Amnesty Law in interpretation judged incompatible with the Convention, devices that lack legal effect. V. JURISDICTION TO CLASSIFY CRIMES SUCH AS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 18. Nevertheless, the question on the merits in the Case of the Guerrilha do Araguaia does not deal with the discussion on the specific jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the material expansion of jus cogens, I make some comments on the possibility and relevance of examining the crimes against humanity. In the case Goiburú, the judgment of the case Almonacid demonstrated that jus cogens transcends the Law of Treaties and encompasses International Law in general, including International Law of Human Rights. 19. It defies the purpose for which the Court was established in not allowing that certain rights be regarded as imperative. The Court can, and beyond this, has the obligation to attribute jus cogens nature to those rights most dear to the person, the core components of protection ("hard core of human rigths"), so as to protect and comply with the objective of protecting human rights covered by the American Convention. 20. The notion of the crime against humanity was established in the beginning of the last century, being consubstantiated in the preamble of the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War (1907), under which States Parties submit themselves to the guarantees and the rule of international law principles advocated by the established customs among civilized nations, by the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience.427 426 Special Secretariat of Human Rights. Right to Memory and Truth, op. Cit., p. 30. 427 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. versus Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 94.