28 receiving favors and/or [money] to provide ‘MST’ with important information on Police preparations and actions […].”89 According to the report, the Military Police were taking the necessary measures to investigate and punish the said person for disseminating the recorded material.90 The State did not submit any information or evidence regarding the said investigation. 99. According to the case file of the monitoring petition, the interception request of April 28, 1999, made by Colonel Kretschmer and ratified by the former Secretary of Security (supra para. 89), was only included on July 1, 1999, together with the report by Major Neves.91 100. On July 2, 1999, TELEPAR deactivated the technical equipment for monitoring the COANA and ADECON telephone lines.92 101. On May 30, 2000, that is more than a year after the interception orders, Judge Khater sent the file of the monitoring petition to the Prosecutor General’s Office for analysis for the first time.93 102. During the hearing of September 8, 2000, the prosecutor Nayani Kelly Garcia (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) indicated, among other matters, that: (i) a military police agent, with no connection to the Loanda jurisdiction, who was not responsible for any criminal investigation in that area, had no legitimacy to request the telephone interception; (ii) the request was made arbitrarily and was not based on a criminal action, a police investigation or a civil action; (iii) the interception of the telephone line of ADECON was requested by Sergeant Silva without any explanation; (iv) the monitoring petition was not linked to a criminal action or to a police investigation; (v) the decisions authorizing the requests were not founded, and (vi) the Prosecutor General’s Office was not notified of the procedure. The prosecutor also stated that these facts “show that the procedure was not aimed at investigating and elucidating a crime, but rather at monitoring MST activities; in other words, it was strictly political in nature, with total disregard for the constitutional right to intimacy, privacy and freedom of association.” Consequently, the Prosecutor General’s Office requested the Loanda Court to declare that the interceptions were invalid, and that the recorded tapes should not be used.94 103. On April 18, 2002, Judge Khater “[r]ejected ‘in totum’ the opinion [of the Prosecutor General’s Office], because it had not been proved that the telephone interceptions were illegal.” However, “in order to avoid delays,” she ordered that the tapes be incinerated, and this was done on April 23, 2002.95 89 Cf. Record of the delivery of the 123 tapes, supra note 83, folio 2143. 90 Cf. Record of the delivery of the 123 tapes, supra note 83, folio 2144. 91 Cf. Report of the delivery of the 123 tapes, supra note 83, folio 2146. 92 Cf. Official communication of TELEPAR of December 1, 1999 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 2, folio 1150). 93 Cf. Decision of Judge Khater of May 30, 1999, in Monitoring Petition No. 41/99 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome I, attachment 10, folio 2215). 94 95 Cf. Brief of the Prosecutor General’s Office of September 8, 2000, supra note 84, folios 2216 to 2220. Cf. Decision of Judge Khater of April 18, 2002, in Monitoring Petition No. 41/99 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome I, attachment 10, folio 2221), and record of the incineration of the recorded tapes of April 23, 2002, in the context of Monitoring Petition No. 41/99 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome I, attachment 10, folio 2222),