36 125. Furthermore, also concerning this weapon, the Court observes that the State acknowledged that the absence of an expert appraisal of a ballistic comparison between the caliber 38 cartridges found at the scene of the eviction and the weapon of the same caliber confiscated from one of the accused constituted a flaw in the Investigation (supra para. 107). The relevance of this appraisal was confirmed by the witness Fabio Guaragni, the expert witness, Salo de Carvalho, and also the prosecutor, Vera de Freitas Mendonça,117 who ordered the appraisal following the re-opening of the Investigation in April 2009. This appraisal could have been useful to prove the participation of one of the accused in the eviction operation.118 Lost evidence 126. The Court notes that the whereabouts of the seized weapon, which was in the custody of the State, is unknown. There is no record that this evidence or the caliber 38 cartridges found at the scene of the crime were attached to the file of the Investigation, despite the provisions of article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.119 Furthermore, there is no record in the case file of where the evidence was sent. In addition, despite Brazil’s affirmation that the weapon has not been lost, but could be at the Police Headquarters or at the Institute of Forensic Science, the Court notes that the State did not provide precise information in this regard. Also, two different chiefs of police, who were in charge of the Investigation at different times, asked the Loanda Court for the revolver, and it is improbable that they would have done so if the evidence sought was at the Police Headquarters (supra paras. 93 and 96). Given the absence of this information, when called upon to give its opinion in this regard, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not mention this situation and proceeded to request the closure of the investigation. Failure to comply with the measures ordered 127. The Court also notes the failure to comply with some of the measures ordered by the chiefs of police and by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. For example, the order given by Police Chief Almeida requiring that the vehicles that had been used in this operation should be produced for identification by the witnesses was not complied with; and neither was the order of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that “the identification of the black F1000 and grey D-20 vehicles, mentioned by the witnesses, be carried out” 120 (supra paras. 76 and 85). Similarly, other measures requested by Prosecutor Garcia and reiterated by the different police chiefs were not taken in the Investigation; they included conducting an appraisal of the ballistic comparison between the weapon confiscated from Ailton Lobato and the cartridges found at the scene of the crime; receiving the statements of other eyewitnesses, of Morival Favoreto’s employees, and of other possible suspects, and finding out whether similar acts had taken place in the region. It is worth noting that, despite Prosecutor Garcia’s orders, no other eyewitnesses were called, especially bearing in mind the nature of 117 Cf. Testimony given by Fabio Guaragni at the public hearing, supra note 63; written expert opinion presented by Salo de Carvalho, supra note 61, folio 2532, and request to re-open the Investigation presented by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 20, 2009, supra note 60, folio 2597. 118 The Court observes that the competent bodies were not asked to provide the list of weapons registered in the name of the Hacienda’s employees or owners, and there is no record that their homes were searched. 119 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 107, folio 2340. Art. 11. The instruments of the crime, together with any object of interest as evidence, shall be attached to the file of the investigation. 120 In this regard: (i) The new owner of the black F1000 pick-up was not summoned to produce the vehicle to the police authorities; (ii) the white truck owned by the company Favoretto Colheitas was not subjected to identification by the witnesses; nor was any evidence sought that this vehicle was not in Querência do Norte at the time of the facts (supra paras. 80 and 82), and (iii) the list of the vehicles registered in the name of the employees and owners of the Hacienda or of the nearest relatives of the latter at the time of the murder was never verified with the competent public bodies.