65 iii) Obligation to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the human rights violations 244. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to carry out “a complete, impartial and effective investigation into the facts in order to establish the civil and administrative responsibilities for the telephone interventions and recordings […] and their subsequent dissemination.” It stated that “comprehensive reparation requires that the State investigate the facts with due diligence, in order to prosecute and punish those responsible”; that “[t]he victims have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of these investigations, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention,” and that “the State ensure effective compliance with the decision adopted by the domestic courts, in compliance with this obligation [and that the] result of the proceedings be published so that Brazilian society can know the truth.” In addition, it considered that “while the State has not complied with its obligation to investigate, charge and punish, […] it incurs in a continuing violation of the right established in Article 25 and of the obligation embodied in Article 1(1) of the Convention.” It maintained that, in the instant case, this violation would only cease with adequate reparation. 245. The representatives endorsed the Commission’s arguments and added that, despite the fact that sufficient time had elapsed to constitute a statute of limitations in the administrative sphere, the decision that acquitted Judge Khater of her functional responsibility constituted “fraudulent res judicata” and, according to the Court’s case law,204 in such cases the ruling could be reviewed based on a decision by the Court. 246. The State affirmed that, in addition to the administrative proceeding filed before the Corregedoria-Geral de Justiça in order to determine the responsibility of Judge Khater, the Corregedoria of the National Council of Justice initiated a new proceeding with the same purpose, so that her functional responsibility has been extensively analyzed and there was no omission in the State’s actions. In addition, under Brazilian law, the possibility of ordering sanctions in administrative matters prescribes after five years, and this period has expired. Regarding the civil sphere, the State argued that two of the victims filed actions for compensation and that one of these actions had already been decided in first instance. 247. In this case, the Court found that a violation of Articles 8 and 25 has been proved as regards the criminal investigation into the dissemination of telephone conversations conducted against the former Secretary of Security (supra para. 204). The Court also found it proved that the State did not investigate the handing over and dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations to one of the media, and did not establish the criminal responsibility for this act (supra para. 205). Regarding the handing over and dissemination of the tapes with the recorded conversations, in accordance with the criteria established in the Court’s case law, the State must investigate the facts and take the necessary measures. Also, regarding the other violations found, the Court considers that this judgment, its publication and the compensation for the pecuniary damage are sufficient measures of reparation. iv) Training for officials of the Judiciary and the Police 248. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt “measures to provide training to police and justice officials on the limits to their functions and investigations, in compliance with the obligation to respect the right to privacy.” 204 In this regard, the representatives mentioned Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 154.