46 because, following the interception and dissemination of the telephone conversations, several of their members were detained or fled the region because they were threatened, and because the association lost its standing with companies and banks, which made it impossible to obtain financial resources. It is obvious that, in addition to criminalizing [and intimidating] the victims, the purpose of the State’s actions was to weaken the rural workers associations linked to MST that are fighting to obtain access to land, the elimination of the latifundios (extensive landholdings) and fair distribution of rural property.” The representatives stressed the importance of combating the impunity of State officials responsible for violating the rights of human rights defenders. Also, despite the creation in 2004 of the “National Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders” of the Special Human Rights Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, there is no effective State protection, because the structure of the program is “incipient and inadequate” and it lacks a legal framework to consolidate it politically and financially. They claimed that the program has not even been implemented in the state of Paraná. According to the representatives, MST members have been threatened and murdered in the region and the State has not taken any measures, which reveals the inexistence of effective protection. 167. The State affirmed that the Commission had erroneously considered the right to hold meetings and the right to form associations together, even though the Convention ensures those rights under different Articles. It indicated that the mention of freedom to hold meetings is inappropriate in this case and asked the Court not to take into account the Commission’s observations in this respect. Brazil denied the violation of the victims’ right to form associations and the existence of “a tendency to harass rural workers and an indirect limitation of the right to form associations.” The inclusion of the violation of the right to form associations in the Commission’s application was based merely on the iura novit curia principle, without a clear description of the facts that constituted the supposed violation. No one suffered a restriction to his right to form associations or to remain a member of an association owing to the facts of the case. The State observed that, based on the testimony provided by the Commission, there is no relationship between COANA and ADECON and MST. Therefore, the argument “that the telephone interceptions were aimed at restricting MST activities or harassing its leaders is not consistent with the facts.” 168. In addition, Brazil indicated that paragraphs XVII to XXI of Article 5 of the Constitution ensure the protection of the right in question. In this regard, the only possible State interference to eliminate or suspend its exercise would be by means of a judicial decision based on the existence of an unlawful purpose of association. Hence, this right is guaranteed by the Constitution and, furthermore, any violations could be repaired by means of the mandado de segurança. Telephone interceptions do not violate, per se, the right to freedom of association, this only occurs when there are irregularities in the procedure and harm is caused. In the instant case, the basis for the interception and monitoring of the telephone lines was the investigation that was underway into the possible diversion by leaders of COANA and ADECON of public resources from PRONAF and PROCERA, as well as the murder of Eduardo Aghinoni. According to the State, there was no irregularity in this procedure and no indications that the request was intended to impede the exercise of freedom of association, so that Article 16 of the Convention had not been violated. It considered that, if the Commission’s arguments were accepted, an absurd situation would arise where the State would be unable to authorize criminal investigations against leaders of associations, because this could intimidate such individuals and prevent them from forming associations. Lastly, the State asserted that it was implementing “diverse measure to support and promote the exercise of the right to form associations, aimed particularly at associations of rural workers.” Regarding the protection of human rights defenders, public policies had been implemented, such as the “National Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders” and the “National Policy for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders.” These mechanisms had been implemented in several states of the federation and the state of Paraná would be included among them. It added that