the police concluded that Crescencio Oliveira de Souza had carried out the shooting. On July 20, 1982, the accused Manoel Cardoso Neto and José Pereira da Nóbrega were arrested as part of the police investigation. On July 28, 1982, the Marabá judge (Jueza de Derecho de la Comarca de Marabá) called for the preventive custody of the two accused. However, on July 31 of the same year, the Judge revoked her decision and ruled in favor of freeing the accused. 13. According to the petitioners, some days later, on August 6, 1982, on the basis of an identification by an eye witness, the Chief of Police responsible for the case urgently requested the preventive custody of the accused, because the eye witness in question, (Luzia Batista da Silva), who had identified José Pereira da Nóbrega as the person who had been driving the car which was used for the murder of the alleged victim, was a minor. The objective was to ensure the physical safety of the witness. However, the Judge did not call for preventive custody, and this was only ordered for the second time on June 20, 1984, when the accused failed to attend a hearing. 14. The allegations state that the attorney general’s office (Ministerio Público), being the titular body in charge of the criminal proceedings, lodged its charge (Denúncia) 2 on August 19, 1983, against the three individuals identified in the report of the police investigation and attributed individual responsibility for the criminal behavior, thus launching Criminal Proceedings No. 1.130/83 3, one year and one month after the crime. 15. With regard to the requirements for admissibility, the petitioners consider that the remedies available under domestic law have been exhausted because after proceedings that lasted for almost 24 years since the death of the union leader, of which 18 years have passed without the initial investigations phase of the proceedings having been completed, the judicial authorities decreed the prescription of criminal proceedings on this charge on May 8, 2006. The exhaustion through prescription, the petitioners allege, occurred because of the State’s behavior or inertia in that it failed to carry out an investigation of the facts that was prompt, serious, and effective. Therefore, the petitioners argue that those responsible for the death of the alleged victim remain unpunished, and the criminal investigations and proceedings that have been launched have been unable to achieve the sanction of those responsible for the said crime. 16. In short, the petitioners allege that the State did not prevent the murder of the alleged victim in spite of the public warnings that it would happen, the breakdown of law and order and the ensuing violence in the Pau Seco area. Furthermore, they add that the murder of the alleged victim was motivated by his active participation in fighting for the rights of rural workers, which would be a violation of the right of free association. Lastly, they also point out that no one has been punished for what took place, nor have the family members of the alleged victim received any civil compensation, thus infringing their rights to due process of law and of access to justice. B. State 17. The State lodged its allegations concerning the petition brought on June 4, 2007. It stated at that time that no violation of the American Convention had taken place because the murder of the alleged victim was not perpetrated by state agents and because Brazil possesses a juridical system which comprises laws that 2 The denúncia is described in Article 41 of the Brazilian Criminal Code. 3 Public Prosecutor’s Office charge. Initial communication from the petitioners dated November 6, 2006, appendix II.44.