32 latter civil police force could have been involved in the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; ii. there was no omission or negligence in conducting the investigation or in the judicial process: over 100 witnesses were questioned, and investigators prepared numerous expert opinions and police sketches, apprehended vehicles, analyzed telephone calls made and received by Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, and transcribed the cassettes supplied by Antônio Lopes. The investigation also extended into other States of Brazil: Tocantins, Goiás and Maranhão; iii. the request for Mrs. Angélica da Silva Campelino to be heard in the jury trial was time-barred. The President of the Jury agreed to allow the technical note concerning the ballistics analysis of the weapon as an opinion given by the defense team of the accused, and not as an official opinion. It would have been outside the scope of the investigation into the homicide of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho to investigate whether the shotgun belonging to Otávio Ernesto Moreira had been used in other crimes attributed to the “golden boys.” A copy of the police investigation into the death of Antônio Lopes was not added to the court records of the criminal action against Otávio Ernesto Moreira because this investigation contributed no conclusive findings or new evidence concerning the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. The question posed to the jury to deliberate on the guilt of the accused could not have been worded any other way, as the Office of the Public Prosecutor was defending the thesis that Otávio Ernesto Moreira was the perpetrator of the homicide of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. The question as asked was consistent with domestic criminal law and was not challenged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor during the trial. There is no concrete evidence to associate the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho with his work as a human rights defender; instead, the representatives are seeking a ruling by the Inter-American Court on matters that lie outside its jurisdiction; and iv. the homicide of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho is a case of great complexity, entailing numerous suspects and many contradictory views on who was responsible. These are the reasons why the judicial process did not lead to a conviction, rather than alleged slowness or omission by the State. Moreover, the fact that no conviction was handed down in this case does not mean that the rules of due process of law have been violated. Finally, the possibility continues to exist that new facts will come to light and that the investigation on Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho could be reopened. Conclusions of the Court 71. Article 1(1) of the American Convention says: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 72. Article 8(1) of the American Convention says: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. […]