circumstances of the case in order to identify and find other agents responsible involved [in Herzog’s homicide]”.340 209. As is apparent from the record, in June 1992, at the request of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of São Paulo, the authorities of the state ordinary jurisdiction opened a police investigation, under No. 487/92, in order to clarify the facts in this case. The Court of the state of São Paulo decided to close the police investigation on October 13, 1992 due to the implementation of the Amnesty Law (Law No. 6.683/79) regarding the facts under investigation. On August 18, 1993, the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed that decision. 210. It was not until March 2008 that members of the Federal Office of the Attorney General requested the federal courts open a criminal investigation, claiming a lack of jurisdiction of the state courts, and the inapplicability of Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law). However, the request was rejected by the Federal Court decision of January 9, 2009. 341 This decision determined the existence of res judicata after the state decided to shelve the case in 1992, based on Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law) and the statute of limitations of the criminal action.342 211. Subsequently, on April 29, 2010, the Federal Supreme Court declared inadmissible an Action claiming Non-compliance of a Fundamental Precept [ADPF 153] filed by the Brazilian Bar Association [“Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil”] and affirmed the validity of the Amnesty Law (Law No. 6.683/79) and the constitutionality of the interpretation of the first paragraph of its Article 1. 343 The Brazilian Bar Association filed a motion for clarification ["embargos de declaração"], which is pending at the date of issue of the instant report. 212. In sum, the decisions to close or shelve the investigation that became final validated an interpretation of Law No. 6.683/79 (Amnesty Law), in the sense that it prevents the investigation and prosecution of the arbitrary detention, torture and execution of Vladimir Herzog. Based on these decisions of the state and federal courts, the Brazilian State has not continued a criminal investigation in ordinary jurisdiction regarding the facts of the instant case. 213. The Commission shall examine whether, once the State became internationally bound after ratifying the American Convention, the following concepts of criminal law: (a) the Amnesty Law (Law No. 6.683/79); (b) res judicata, and (c) statute of limitation of the criminal action, apply and are compatible in the instant case with its international obligations in this matter. (a) Amnesty Law (Law No. 6.683/79) 214. The Commission has commented in a number of cases on the application of amnesty laws, stating that such laws violate several provisions of both the American Declaration and the Convention. In these decisions, consistent with the criteria of other international human rights bodies, the Commission has uniformly stated that both the amnesty laws as well as comparable legislative measures that prevent or terminate an investigation and prosecution of State agents who may be responsible for serious violations of the Convention or the American Declaration, violate multiple provisions of these instruments. 344 215. In similar terms, the Court has repeatedly held that “[a]ll amnesty provisions […] are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for 340 Relatório da Comissão Nacional da Verdade. Volume III. “Mortos e desaparecidos políticos” – May 1974 – October 1985, fls. 1799, of December 10, 2014. 341 Proceso 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 7, fls. 1381 and 1385, Judgment of deputy Federal Judge Paula Mantovani Avelino, of January 9, 2009. 342 Proceso 2008.61.81.013434-2 Justiça Federal - São Paulo, Volume 7, fls. 1387, Judgment of deputy Federal Judge Paula Mantovani Avelino, of January 9, 2009. 343 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Serie C No. 219, para.136. 344 IACHR. Report No. 44/00, Case 10.820. Peru, of April 13, 2000, para. 68, and IACHR. Report No. 47/00, Case 10.908. Peru, of April 13, 2000, para. 76. In this regard, cfr. IACHR. Report No. 55/99, Cases 10.815; 10.905; 10.981; 10.995; 11.042, and 11.136. Peru, April 13, 1999, para. 140. 47