2 specific recommendations for the State. This report was notified to Brazil on April 10, 2007, and the State was granted two months to inform the Commission of the actions undertaken to implement the said recommendations. After the State had been granted three extensions and, “after considering the information provided by the parties concerning the implementation of the recommendations in the Report on Merits and […] the absence of any substantive progress in complying with them,” the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court’s jurisdiction. It considered that this case represented a valuable opportunity to enhance inter-American case law concerning protection of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of association, as well as on the limits to the exercise of public authority. The Commission appointed Clare K. Roberts, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and the lawyers, Juan Pablo Albán and Andrea Repetto, as legal advisers. 2. According to the Commission, the application refers to “the [alleged] unlawful telephone interception and monitoring of the telephone lines of Arle[i] José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni […] and Eduardo Aghinoni, members of the organizations [ADECON] and [COANA], carried out by the Military Police of the state of Paraná between April and June 1999; [the dissemination of the telephone conversations] and the denial of justice and adequate reparation.” 3. In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy [Honor and Dignity]), 16 (Freedom of Association) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions established, respectively, in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and also in consideration of the directives arising from the Federal Clause contained in Article 28 of this instrument. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation. 4. On April 7, 2008, the organizations Justiça Global, Rede Nacional de Advogados Populares, Terra de Direitos, Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT) and Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief, they asked the Court, based on the facts set out by the Commission in its application, to declare the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, privacy, freedom of association and judicial protection established in Articles 8, 11, 16 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 28 thereof to the detriment of Arlei José Escher and Dalton Luciano de Vargas, and another 32 members of COANA and ADECON who were not indicated as alleged victims in the application. Consequently, they asked the Court to order measures of reparation. Lastly, in a power of attorney granted on April 16, 2007, these two organizations appointed the lawyers of Justiça Global, Andressa Caldas, Luciana Silva Garcia, Renata Verônica Cortes de Lira and Tamara Melo to be their legal representatives. 5. On July 7, 2008, the State presented a brief in which it filed three preliminary objections, answered the application, and made observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). The State asked the Court to consider that the preliminary objections were justified and, consequently: (i) not to admit the pleadings and motions brief and its attachments; (ii) to exclude the alleged failure to comply with Article 28 of the Convention from the analysis of the merits, and (iii) to declare itself incompetent owing to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It also maintained that the domestic courts had examined the conduct of the military police who requested the telephone interception, of the judge who authorized it, and of the Secretary for Public Security at the time who had disseminated part of the recordings, and concluded that there had been no unlawful conduct. It asked the Court to “acknowledged that the Brazilian State

Select target paragraph3