The thesis aims to analyze the international responsibility of the Brazilian State for crimes perpetrated by State agents, in the context of the military regime (1964-1985), based on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACourtHR). The analysis will consider the normative and jurisdictional cases that served as precedents to the Brazilian State s convictions in the cases Julia Gomes Lund et al. vs. Brazil (2010) and Vladimir Herzog et al. vs. Brazil (2018). Initially, will be presented the emergency scenario of international regulations related to the criminal responsibility of individuals and the responsibility of States. Once the global normative panorama is presented, will be introduced the case law of the Inter-American Court regarding the serious violations of human rights perpetrated, in a systematic and massive way, through the bureaucratic apparatus of State power. As will be explained, only in specific cases, the Inter-American Court uses concepts of international criminal law as an interpretive basis for the obligations embodied in the American Convention of Human Rights, building a dialogue between this area of Law and the human rights normative. Finally, the research will focus on the aforementioned judgments, separated by almost a decade, but which share the context in which the facts of the cases occurred. Notably, the Herzog s case considers the qualification of crimes against humanity – a significant step, in relation to the Gomes Lund s case, for activists and legal practitioners in the domestic sphere. Under this bias, the present work intends to investigate to what extent the framing of crimes against humanity has the power to strengthen initiatives in favor of the criminal responsibility of the agents of the dictatorial regime and the contestation of repressive structures and practices still valid.