international crimes can never relieve the perpetrators from their international responsibility or the State from punishing such crimes. 189 232. Starting with its first judgment, this Court has emphasized the importance of the State obligation to investigate and punish human rights violations. The obligation to investigate and, when appropriate, prosecute and punish acquires particular importance considering the heinous nature of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights violated, 190 especially in view of the prohibition of torture and extrajudicial executions as part of a systematic attack against the civilian population. 191 The special and determinant intensity and importance of this obligation in cases of crimes against humanity 192 means that State may not use: (i) statutory limitations; (ii) the ne bis in idem principle; (iii) amnesty laws, or (iv) any similar provision that precludes responsibility, to waive its obligation to investigate and punish those responsible. 193 In addition, the Court considers that the obligation to prevent and to punish crimes under international law, includes the duty of States to cooperate and they may (v) apply the principle of universal jurisdiction with regard to such conducts. B.3. The torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog 233. Having established the standards relating to crimes against humanity and their consequences for the States, the Court will now examine the case sub judice to establish: (i) whether or not the torture and murder of Vladimir Herzog occurred in a context of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Brazilian military dictatorship, and (ii) the eventual consequences of this determination for Brazil at the time of the facts and after December 10, 1998. Subsequently, the Court (iii) will summarize the measures taken by the State, and (iv) analyze their compatibility with the American Convention to determine the alleged international responsibility pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to 189 Cf. UN. Report of the International Law Commission covering its second session, 5 June – 29 July 1950. A/1316, p. 11. Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, Principle II: “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.” Available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_cn4_34.pdf. International Court of Justice, Judgment of September7, 1927, Matter of S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Series A, No. 10 (1927), 2 (20); ECHR. Case of Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia, Nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04. Inadmissibility decision of January 17, 2006. See also: Case of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GS], No. 35343/05. Judgment of October 20, 2015, paras. 167, 168, 170 and 172; ECCC. Decision on preliminary objections in the case against Ieng Sary (Ne Bis in Idem and Amnesty and Pardon), Case No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, Trial Judgment of November 3, 2011, para. 41. See also, for example, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Argentina: Appeal. Judgment of November 2, 1995, Case of Erich Priebke No. 16,063/94, considerandum 4 and Concurring opinion of Judge Julio S. Nazareno and Eduardo Moline O’Connor, consideranda 76 and 77; Appeal. Judgment of August 24, 2004, Case of Arancibia Clavel, Enrique Lautaro, case No. 259, consideranda 34 to 38 and Opinion of Judge Antonio Boggiano, considerandum 29; Appeal. Judgment of June 14, 2005, Case of Julio Héctor Simón et al., case No. 17,768, Opinion of Judge Antonio Boggiano, considerandum 42; Federal Criminal Oral Court (La Plata). September 26, 2006, Case of “Circuito Camps” et al., case No. 2251/06, considerandum IV.A. Similarly, see also, Constitutional Court of Peru. Judgment of March 18, 2004, Case file No. 2488-2002, considerandum 4; Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay. Cassation appeal, August 12, 2015. Case file 97-78/2012, Judgment 1,061/2015, considerandum III.1.b. See also, expert opinion of Juan Ernesto Méndez, para. 42 (evidence file, folio 14075). 190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, para. 141. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 84; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, para. 137. 191 192 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 115; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 208. 193 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, para. 41; Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities in the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 247. 52