444. The Court recalls that, in Chapter VII-1, it declared that the different investigations conducted by the State concerning the facts of this case had been inadequate and violated the victims’ rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 445. Consequently, the Court, as in cases it has heard previously525 and based on the nature of slavery as a crime under international law, and that the statute of limitations cannot be applied to the subjection of a person to a condition similar to slavery, establishes that the State should re-open, with due diligence, the required investigations and/or criminal proceedings for the facts verified in March 2000 in this case in order, within a reasonable time, to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible. In particular, the State must: (a) ensure that the victims and their next of kin have full access and capacity to act at all stages of these investigations, pursuant to domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention; (b) given that slavery is a crime under international law and taking into consideration the characteristics of the facts and the context in which they occurred, the State must abstain from using mechanisms, such as amnesty or any other procedural obstacle, to exempt itself from this obligation; (c) guarantee that the investigations and proceedings with regard to the facts of this case are conducted, at all times, by the federal jurisdiction, and (d) publish the results of the proceedings so that Brazilian society may know the judicial determination of the facts that are the purpose of this case.526 In particular, the State should investigate and, if appropriate, re-establish (or reconstruct) criminal proceeding 2001.39.01.000270-0, initiated in 2001, before the Second Jurisdiction of the Marabá Federal Justice Department, state of Pará. 446. Also, as it has on other occasions,527 the Court establishes that, pursuant to the pertinent disciplinary rules, the State should examine the possible investigative and procedural irregularities related to this case and, if appropriate, sanction the conduct of the public servants concerned, without the need for the victims in this case to file the pertinent complaints. C. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 447. The Court will determine measures that seek to repair non-pecuniary damage, as well as measures of a public scope or repercussion. 528 International case law and, in particular, that of this Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.529 C.1. Measures of satisfaction: publication of the judgment 448. The representatives asked that the State publish the sections of the judgment that refer to the proven facts, the analysis of the violations of the American Convention, and the operative paragraphs. To this end, they indicated that the publications should be made in national newspapers as well as in the regional newspapers of Maranhão, Piauí, Mato Grosso and Tocantins, the states most affected by slave labor. 449. 525 The State did not comment on this measure of reparation. Among others, Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma, para. 262, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al., para. 268. Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al., para. 269. 526 527 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 215, and Case of Velásquez Paiz, para. 230. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 220. 528 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 220. 529 109