31 Competent authorities ignored evidence and testimony upholding the thesis that the death was a homicide planned by the death squad known as the “golden boys.” Charges were filed only 46 days after the ballistics report was released on December 10, 1998, even though this ballistics test could have provided clues as to the participation of other police officers. Following the arrest of Otávio Ernesto Moreira and identification of the murder weapon by means of ballistics analysis, the State failed to conduct the necessary procedures to identify other participants in the homicide. For example, the Federal Police did not question members of the Civil Police of the State of Rio Grande do Norte to whom Otávio Ernesto Moreira customarily lent his weapon or police officers who allegedly took part in the death squad, nor were these procedures requested by the prosecuting attorney or the presiding judge. When investigations resumed on September 24, 1998, the errors could have been corrected, but they were not. The hundreds of procedures performed by the Federal Police and by the judicial branch were the result of simple mechanical application of procedural formalities. The way investigations were conducted, as well as the production of evidence, made it very difficult to pin the blame on the people involved in the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; ii. the Office of the Public Prosecutor and judicial authorities who conducted the case were not diligent; among other things, they did not order the case file on the death of Antônio Lopes to be added to the file for the criminal process against Otávio Ernesto Moreira so that the appropriate connection could be made between the two deaths; they did not diligently conduct investigations into the death of Antônio Lopes; they did not summon the witness Angélica da Silva Campelino to give testimony before the jury trial; they concurred with the content of the question posed to the jury, to the effect that Otávio Ernesto Moreira had fired the shots and produced the injuries described in the autopsy report, even though they knew that the accused had not been physically perpetrated the homicide; and iii. there has been undue delay in the criminal process, as more than nine years after the murder of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, the process has not been completed, and no one has been held responsible. The State's pleadings on the complexity of the case cannot be held as a pretext for lack of concrete results in the investigation. The prevailing impunity in the instant case is the result of inefficient performance by authorities responsible for conducting investigative procedures. Arguments of the State 70. The State claims, inter alia, that: a) the Court does not hold jurisdiction to rule on the alleged violation of the right to life for reasons of time, because the homicide of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho took place two years before the State had recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, and the effects of that recognition are not retroactive; b) concerning the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection: i. the State conducted a conscientious investigation consistent with the rules of due process of law. Both the police investigation and the criminal process unfolded over a reasonable amount of time. The investigation was supervised by multiple public bodies and was performed by the Federal Police rather than the Civil Police of the State of Rio Grande do Norte, in view of the possibility that members of the