understood that, in view of its evident incompatibility with the American Convention, the interpretation and application of the Amnesty Law in this case was aimed at shielding those presumably responsible from the action of justice and leaving the crime committed against the journalist Vladimir Herzog in impunity. It indicated that, in this case, the State could not resort to the principle of ne bis in idem in order not to comply with its international obligations. 177. Regarding the presumed violation of the principle of legality, the Commission argued that the opening of an investigation in this case did not violate the rule of law because, at the time the facts occurred, international law recognized as a general principle the imprescriptibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 178. Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the failure to investigate the facts, and to prosecute and punish those responsible violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Clarice (wife), André and Ivo (sons) and Zora (mother, deceased in 2006), all Herzog. 179. First, the representatives considered that Brazil’s responsibility in this case was aggravated because it involved a crime against humanity, since the arbitrary detention, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog was not an isolated act, but occurred in a context of massive and systematic violence against those who were considered political opponents of the military regime. 180. The representatives indicated that the State had the obligation to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, an obligation that persisted even in those cases in which the facts occurred before the State had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. 181. They argued that, although various proceedings had been conducted in the domestic sphere, to date the State had not guaranteed effective judicial protection to investigate and establish the whole truth of the circumstances of the arbitrary detention, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog, and to identify and punish those responsible. 182. They indicated that an effective investigation had not been conducted in the criminal jurisdiction because the only appropriate means for this, the criminal judicial proceeding before the competent authority of the ordinary federal jurisdiction, had been obstructed by res judicata and the statute of limitations, even before the effective initiation of the investigations. The previous attempt to obtain an investigation before the organs that did not have competence to act in the case was closed prematurely. 183. Regarding the Amnesty Law, they indicated that its interpretation had continued for decades allowing the authorities to evade the obligation to investigate, ex officio, facts that constituted gross human rights violations, such as torture. In the case of Vladimir Herzog, the Amnesty Law was applied specifically in 1992 and this, subsequently, led to the appeal filed by the Federal Public Prosecution Service being closed in 2008. The amnesty had also had effects on the public civil action filed by the Federal Public Prosecution Service. They indicated that those facts fell within the Court’s temporal competence. 184. The representatives argued that the State had used the device of substantial res judicata, supposedly produced by the 1993 decision, to avoid investigating and punishing those responsible. That had been the main argument to close the investigations opened before the federal system of justice in 2008. In this regard, they indicated that the principle of ne bis 39