48 disappearance be effectively investigated by the state authorities, that those responsible be prosecuted, and where applicable, punished, and that the harm to the next of kin be repaired. Moreover, no law or norm in domestic law, such as the provisions of the amnesty, the rules on statute of limitations and other exceptions to responsibility, can impede a State from complying with this obligation, especially when it deals with serious violations of human rights that constitute crimes against humanity, such as the enforced disappearance in the present case, given that said crimes are not subject to amnesty or a statute of limitations. The obligation to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention carries with it the obligation to investigate the facts that affected said substantive rights. Said Law cannot continue to impede the investigation of the facts. Based on the aforementioned, the Commission considered that the State incurred in violations of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in accordance with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same, to the detriment of the 70 victims disappeared in the Guerrilha do Araguaia and of their next of kin, as well as Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva and her next of kin. 128. The representatives concurred with the arguments of the Commission on the obligation to investigate and punish the human rights violations in the present case. While States are obligated to remove all factual and legal obstacles that impede the exhaustive legal clarification of violations of the American Convention, in the present case, there are various legal obstacles. In regard to the Amnesty Law, the interpretation that has been utilized in the domestic forum is the one that considers “derived crimes” to be all of those which were committed by State agents, including the serious violations of human rights. Said interpretation constitutes a major obstacle for the guarantee of the right to access justice and the right of the next of kin of the disappeared persons to know the truth, which has created a situation of total impunity. The Federal Supreme Tribunal has endorsed such interpretation most recently, which thus increases the obstacle that said law represents for the investigation of the facts for the ensuing effects and erga omnes effectiveness of the decision. Finally, they noted the irrelevance of the context of the creation of the Amnesty Law for International Law, given that they considered that while this Law impedes the persecution of those responsible for grave human rights violations, it would be contrary to the international obligations of the State. The Amnesty Law was not the result of a process of balanced negotiation, given that its content did not consider the positions and necessities demanded by its consignees and next of kin. As such, to attribute consent to the amnesty for the repression of the agents of the campaign and the next of kin of the disappeared is to deform history. 129. On the other hand, the representatives noted that the statute of limitations is a second legal obstacle for the investigation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, as seen in cases wherein said rule was applied to criminal conduct during the military regime. The third obstacle is the failure to codify the crime of enforced disappearance in Brazilian law, to which they indicated that: a) in dealing with a crime of a permanent nature, the criminal prohibition is applicable while the criminal conduct continues; b) the failure to codify said crime in the Brazilian legal code implies a Non-compliance of the State of the provisions in Article 2 of the Convention and imposes upon the State the obligation to apply its criminal law in a compatible manner with its conventional obligations, in a manner that seeks to avoid said conduct from continuing in impunity, and c) the principle of legality should not be to the detriment of the trial and the punishment of the acts that, at the time of their commission, were crimes pursuant to the general legal obligations recognized by the international community. A fourth legal obstacle is the intervention of the military justice system, given that within domestic law there are recent antecedents that open the possibility for it to occur in violation of the Inter-American and international