51 sufficient to give rise to the State’s responsibility, [because] evidently the Judiciary’s actions can determine the international responsibility of the State.” Regarding the State’s claim that the criminal and administrative proceedings had been processed very diligently, the Commission recalled the Court’s case law on the concept of fraudulent res judicata and stated that “this concept […] results from a trial in which the rules of due process have not been respected, or in which the judges did not act with independence and impartiality [and that, in] the instant case, it had been proved that the proceeding before the domestic courts was flawed owing to these serious defects.” In its final written arguments, the Commission reiterated that an investigation should be conducted to determine the administrative or any other responsibilities of the public officials involved in the violations that had occurred and insisted that the State had the obligation to investigate the human rights violations, prosecute those responsible and avoid impunity.” It concluded that the State violated the victims’ right to due judicial guarantees, as well as the possibility of a prompt, effective and simple remedy as established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 183. The representatives indicated that Brazil had violated the judicial guarantees of Article 8 and the judicial protection of Article 25 of the Convention: (a) by authorizing the telephone interception by means of a judicial decision delivered contrary to the provisions of Law No. 9,296/96 and Articles 5, paragraph XII, and 93, paragraph IX, of the Federal Constitution; (b) by the dissemination of the intercepted telephone conversations to the written and television media by the former Secretary of Security; (c) by not guaranteeing an effective judicial remedy to prevent the continuation of the illegal telephone interceptions and to ensure the destruction of the recordings; (d) by failing to guarantee the due impartiality and independence of the trial court during the criminal investigation; (e) by not ensuring that the victims had a remedy that required an administrative investigation to establish the responsibility of the public agents involved in the interceptions, and (f) by not guaranteeing an effective judicial remedy, within a reasonable time, to make civil reparation for the damage caused by the illegal interceptions and the dissemination of the recordings by the public agents. 184. The representatives stated that, following the decision of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná, the victims filed embargos de declaração to correct the omission of the ruling as regards the request to destroy the tapes. The said court refused to admit this remedy and maintained its original decision concerning the extinction of the mandado de segurança since the purpose had ceased to exist, without examining the request to destroy the tapes. The representatives added that the recurso ordinário constitucional would not have been effective for the victims because the violation of the right to honor and privacy had already been perpetrated; the intention was to prevent the continuation of the violation over time and they had therefore filed the mandado de segurança. Since the interceptions had already been suspended owing to a decision of the judge of the Comarca de Loanda, there was no need to file the recurso ordinário constitucional before the Superior Court of Justice. They indicated that the victims filed a criminal action (representação criminal) before the head of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the state of Paraná (Procurador Geral de Justiça) against the public agents supposedly involved in the illegal interceptions for the offenses of usurpation of public functions and abuse of authority, among other aspects. However, none of the public agents was declared responsible by the Brazilian Judiciary. Moreover the administrative department of the Court of Justice did not sanction Judge Khater administratively, “despite [this court’s] express recognition that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution had been violated. They stated that the victims had filed civil actions to obtain reparation before the courts in May 2004 and, to date, no final ruling had been made and no time limit has been set for concluding these actions; consequently, the cases had not been decided within a reasonable time.