37 the operation that involved around 50 families that were at the Hacienda during the eviction; it is also strange that the order to summon the Hacienda’s employees to give testimony was not complied with (supra paras. 76 and 85). Likewise, the case file shows that some of the evidence required by Police Chief Almeida and by Prosecutor Garcia was only produced partially.121 Error in the request to close the Investigation 128. Additionally, the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to close the Investigation was based, among other reasons, on the fact that “Morival Favoreto denied taking part in the facts, stating that he was in São Bernardo do Campo […] accompanying his brother, Darci Favoreto, on a doctor’s visit,” and that Dr. Flair Carrilho had “confirmed the presence of Darci Favoreto in his office, in the [said] city on the day of the facts (supra para. 97). In this regard, the Court highlights that, contrary to the statement made by the prosecutor, the witness Flair Carrilho stated that he attended Darci Favoreto on November 25, 1998, and that it was his signature on the receipt with the same date and, thus, he did not confirm the presence of Darci Favoreto, or of his brother Morival, in his office on November 27, 1998, the date of the facts. * * * 129. When requesting the closure of the investigation, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not consider the possibility of ordering the measures mentioned in the previous paragraphs concerning the statements, the vehicles and the weapons used in the eviction (supra paras. 122 to 127). Irrespective of the personal conviction of the prosecutor, it is clear that the latter accepted as true the information provided by police clerk Ribeiro and Morival Favoreto, without seeking to prove it, or compare it with other reiterated evidence in the case file, thus waiving the State’s punitive powers. In addition, Judge Khater’s decision to close the investigation merely endorsed the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; it did not assess the measures that had been taken or provide grounds to justify the decision. In this regard, when deciding to close the investigation, the judge failed to exercise effective judicial control over the said request, which, as the Court has already described, contained various errors and omissions. 130. The Court considers that the State bodies responsible for an investigation into the violent death of an individual, the purpose of which is to determine the facts, identify those responsible and decide their possible punishment, should perform their task diligently and exhaustively. Given the juridical right to which the investigation relates, there is an obligation to make every effort to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to comply with this objective. The negligent or omissive action of State bodies is not compatible with the obligations arising from the American Convention, especially when an essential human right is involved. 121 In this regard, despite the instructions given in Police Chief Almeida’s order to take the testimony of Eduardo Minutoli Junior (supra paras. 85 and 91), he was not questioned about the date on which Morival Favoreto stayed at his home in order to accompany his brother to a doctor’s visit. As the witness Fábio Guaragni stated before this Court, that testimony was “laconic” and the deponent “was not asked essential questions.” Testimony rendered by Fabio Guaragni at the public hearing, supra note 63. Similarly, the witness, Flair Carrilho, was not asked all the questions indicated by Police Chief Almeida in his request (supra paras. 85 and 94). Consequently, the Prosecutor’s request that “the alibi presented by the accused, Morival Favoreto, for the day of the facts be confirmed” was not complied with either (supra para. 83). In any case, the possible presence of Morival Favoreto in another city on November 25, 1998, did not provide an explanation with regard to a fact that occurred two days later.