28 Criminal Procedure and Directive 524 of the Federal Supreme Court, she ordered the reopening of the investigation.93 B) Arguments of the parties 101. The Inter-American Commission alleged that States are internationally responsible for the act or omission of any of their organs or agents, including their judicial and police bodies, when these organs or agents violate human rights established in the Convention. A crucial purpose of any criminal proceeding is to clarify the act investigated. The State must conduct the judicial investigation in good faith, diligently, exhaustively and impartially, and it should be designed to explore all possible lines of investigation leading to the identification of the authors of the crime, in order to prosecute and punish them. In the instant case, this required carrying out all necessary measures and inquiries to discover the truth about Sétimo Garibaldi’s death and to punish those responsible. It considered that the authorities in charge of the Investigation failed to take into account the intervention of many perpetrators, concentrating on Morival Favoreto and Ailton Lobato; furthermore, they did not take into consideration the masterminds of the crime or those with a potential interest in the eviction. It identified the following errors, among others, in the investigation: (a) the co-owners of the Hacienda and partners in Favoretto Colheitas were not summoned to testify; (b) apart from the eight statements received, other individuals who witnessed the facts were not called on to give testimony, even though approximately 200 people were camped on the Hacienda; nor were other employees of this property or of Favoretto Colheitas; (c) police clerk Ribeiro, who provided information to the investigation about the shot fired with the weapon seized from Ailton Lobato, subsequently acted as the chief of police in charge of the investigation; (d) the date of the supposed visit of Morival Favoreto to the residence of Eduardo Minutoli Junior was not verified; (e) the caliber 38 bullet cartridges found at the scene of the crime were not compared with the weapon seized; (f) this weapon disappeared from the Loanda Court; (g) when urged to issue an opinion on the disappearance of the weapon, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not refer to it and did not adopt the relevant investigative measures; instead it requested the closure of the Investigation, even though the Police Chief had not completed it and presented his concluding report, and (h) at different times, no substantive actions were taken in the Investigation. The Commission added that the numerous serious errors in the investigation should be examined within their specific context; namely, that this was an operation involving a violent eviction from private property and that the facts of the case are in line with a common practice in Brazil. Both elements should have facilitated the development of the Investigation, because the operation evidently responded to a specific purpose and a modus operandi of which the authorities should have been aware. 102. The Commission maintained that, even though several years have elapsed since the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, “the offense investigated remains unpunished, and more than a reasonable time has passed without the State’s domestic bodies responsible for the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the facts producing results.” Moreover, “the characteristics of the act, the personal situation of those implicated in the investigation procedure, the degree of complexity of the case, and the procedural activity of the interested parties [do not] constitute elements that can excuse the unjustified delay in the administration of justice that occurred in this case.” The impunity of human rights violations is especially important in the case of landless workers, because it is one of the principal causes of violence in the rural areas of Brazil. Hence, regarding the facts subsequent to December 10, 1998, “the delay and lack of due diligence in the investigation procedure and the collection of essential evidence […] characterize a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof.” 93 Cf. Request to re-open the investigation presented by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 20, 2009, supra note 60, folios 2582 and 2586, and decision of the Loanda Court of April 20, 2009 (file of documents presented at the public hearing, sole tome, folios 2590 and 2591).