50 the agents of the State, but also, from the onset, its purpose was to encompass both sides of the political-ideological spectrum. It also noted that the restriction established in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the mentioned law, which excluded the application of certain benefits regarding specific conduct, was not applied by Brazilian jurisprudence, arguing that this created a disproportionate application of the Amnesty, given that it was general and unrestricted. To understand the merits of the Amnesty Law it is necessary to take into account that this law functions in a broad and gradual process of political change and redemocratization of the country. B. Facts related to the Amnesty Law 134. On August 28, 1979, after the endorsement by the National Congress, Law No. 6.683/79 was approved, which granted amnesty in the following terms:172 Art. 1. Amnesty is granted to all whom, in the period between September 2, 1961, and August 15, 1979, committed political crimes or derived crimes to these, electoral crimes, to those who had their political rights suspended, and to direct or indirect public servants of the administration, of foundations that belong to the public power, to the public servants of the legislative and judicial powers, to the military, leaders, and union representatives, who were punished based on institutional and complementary acts. § 1.- For effects of this Article, derived crimes are those crimes of any nature related to political crimes or carried out with political motivation. § 2.- Those excluded from the benefit of this amnesty are persons who were convicted for the crimes of terrorism, assault, kidnapping, and personal attacks. 135. Under said law, to date, the State has not investigated, processed, or criminally punished those responsible for the human rights violations committed during the military regime, including those of the present case.173 This continued given that “the official interpretation [of the Amnesty Law] automatically absolves all of the [h]uman [r]ights violations committed by agents of the political repression.”174 136. On April 29, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court, in a seven to two vote,175 declared the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle filed by the Order of Attorneys in Brazil as inadmissible and affirmed the force of the Amnesty Law and the constitutionality of the interpretation of paragraph 1º of Article 1º. (supra paras. 44 and 58). Said decision has an erga omnes effect to which no 172 Law No. 6.683, of August, 28, 1979 (case file of the answer to the application, tome IV, annex 33, folio 6824). 173 Cf. Partial report on compliance with the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission of March 2009 (brief of annexes to the answer to the application, tome I, annex 4, folios 5548, 5551 and 5552); Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folios 5593 and 5615, and Merits Report No. 91/08, supra note 4, folio 3625. Cf. Also the statement of Mr. dos Santos Junior rendered at the public hearing on May 20, 2010. Likewise, cf. supra note 151. 174 Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folio 5595. 175 Vote of the Rapporteur Minister in the Non-Compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle No. 153 resolved by the Federal Supreme Court (case file on the merits, tome VI, folios 2598 to 2670); DVD with videos of the oral support (case file on the merits, tome VII, folio 3885), and votes of the Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court (case file on the merits, tome VI, folios 2577 to 2597 and 2671 to 2704, and tome VII, folios 3839 to 3884).