49 178. The Court notes, therefore, that, in addition to failing to comply with the legal requirements, the State’s interference in the communications of COANA and ADECON did not comply with the supposedly legitimate purpose proposed – namely the criminal investigation of the alleged offenses – and resulted in the monitoring of the activities of the members of the said associations. 179. In addition, in his testimony, Arlei José Escher stated that “the dissemination denigrated him and the association of which he was a member. It even created conflicts and doubts within [COANA] and ADECON” and also “greatly affected [their activities,] which were paralyzed, and their projects were interrupted.” He stated that he “was afraid that the harassment would start up again because he had testified.”161 Delfino José Becker testified that he “did not know whether the activities of ADECON and COANA were affected or not by the dissemination; however, it affected their reputation.”162 Furthermore, in his testimony, Pedro Alves Cabral stated “that owing to the dissemination, [his] personal and professional life was affected significantly and he had even been harassed by the police, [and that he was] imprisoned after the facts, but was not convicted. The dissemination made the farmers who were members of the cooperative afraid” and “the activities of ADECON and COANA were affected at the time, due to fear and apprehension.”163 Similarly, Marli Bambrilla Kappaum testified that “she was afraid to testify, because [owing to the facts of the case] she distrusted the State,” and that the dissemination “gave the impression that [the associations] were […] organizations created to perpetrate crimes.”164 Lastly, Celso Aghinoni testified before the Court that the image of the associations was prejudiced, that “everyone began to see [them] as criminals, as terrorists”; that the projects being implemented within the cooperative to assist production “were frozen for five years, until […] it was possible to regain the trust […] of the companies, the banks, and the government agencies, [so they] suffered immense moral and financial prejudice”; that “the civil and military police systematically harassed [the members of the associations],” and that, following the facts, he “avoided saying that […] he was a member of COANA.”165 180. The Court does not have other elements that would allow it to find that the harassment and the pecuniary damage claimed by the representatives – such as the loss of earnings and the organizations’ possibilities of obtaining credit as a result of the said facts – had been proved. Nevertheless, the abovementioned statements made by the witnesses are consistent in revealing that when they found out about the interception and dissemination of their telephone conversations, they were extremely fearful and, also, that the dissemination caused problems for the members and the farmers linked to COANA and ADECON, in addition to affected the image of these associations. The State made some observations on the content of some of these statements, referring to other aspects of them.166 Consequently, the Court finds it proved that the monitoring of the telephone communications of the association – without respecting the legal requirements, with stated objectives that were not supported by the facts and the subsequent conduct of the police and judicial authorities – followed by their dissemination caused fear and tensions and 161 697. 162 969. 163 971. Testimony of Arlei José Escher rendered before notary public on November 7, 2008, supra note 72, folio Testimony of Delfino José Becker rendered before notary public on November 7, 2008, supra note 72, folio Testimony of Pedro Alves Cabral rendered before notary public on November 7, 2008, supra note 72, folio 164 Testimony of Marli Brambilla Kappaum rendered before notary public on November 7, 2008, supra note 69, folio 982. 165 Testimony given by Celso Aghinoni during the public hearing, supra note 66. 166 Cf. supra note 57.