307. Based on the absolute prohibition of crimes under international law and crimes against humanity, the Court agrees with expert witnesses Roth-Arriaza and Mendez that valid expectations of legal certainty were never created for the perpetrators of such conducts because the crimes were already prohibited by domestic and international law when they were committed. Furthermore, the pro reo principle is not applicable or violated because there was never any legitimate expectation of amnesty or statutory limitations that would result in a legitimate expectation of finality. 362 The only expectation that effectively existed was the operation of the system of concealment and protection of the security forces’ executioners. The Court cannot consider this expectation legitimate and sufficient to disregard a peremptory norm of international law. 308. In addition, the Court reiterates that the alleged “failure to define crimes against humanity” in domestic law has no impact on the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators. This is because a crime against humanity is not a criminal offense, as such, but rather a classification of criminal conducts that were already defined in all legal systems: torture (or its equivalent), and murder/homicide. The impact of classifying these conducts as a crime against humanity is to prevent the application of procedural devices that exclude responsibility owing to the jus cogens nature of the prohibition of such conducts. It is not a new offense. Therefore, the Court finds that the position of the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecution Service was appropriate when indicating that there was a double subsumption; that is, that the unlawful act should be established in both domestic law and international law. In the case of crimes under international law and crimes against humanity, the international element refers to the planned, massive or systematic nature of the attack on the civilian population. That second element, arising from international law, is what justifies the prohibition to apply devices that exclude responsibility (supra paras. 229 to 231). 309. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled similarly, 363 asserting that, taking into account the flagrantly illegal character of the ill-treatment and murders that occurred in 1944, the applicant could have predicted that the contested acts could be classified as war crimes and that, regardless of whether the crime was defined in domestic law, it was not possible to ignore the unlawful nature of crimes against humanity. 364 The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also declared that “crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations. 365 This same conclusion on crimes against humanity applies, mutatis mutandi, to the acts perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog in view of their seriousness and the context in which they took place. 310. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State cannot argue the inexistence of domestic laws, or incompatibility with domestic law in order not to comply with a peremptory and non-derogable international obligation. The Court considers that the State failed to guarantee an effective judicial remedy to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the detention, torture and death of Vladimir Herzog. B.5. Conclusion 362 Expert opinion of Naomi Roth-Arriaza (evidence file, folio 13957). 363 ECHR. Case of Kononov v. Latvia, No. 36376/04. Judgment of May 17, 2010. ECHR. Case of Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia, Nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04. Inadmissibility decision of January 17, 2006, and Case of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GS], No. 35343/05. Judgment of October 20, 2015, paras. 167, 168, 170 an 172. 364 365 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Spain, CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, of January 5, 2009, para. 9. Available at: https://undocs.org/en/CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5. 82