35 122. The Court notes that testimony was not received, which prima facie could have proved essential to clarify the facts. Vanderlei Garibaldi, who had witnessed the eviction operation and informed the police of the murder, and his brother-in-law, Marcelo, who was with Mr. Garibaldi at the time of his death, were among the persons who were not summoned to testify.113 Even though Vanderlei Garibaldi did not go to the Police Headquarters spontaneously to make a statement, it was for the State authorities to summon him, because the Investigation should have been conducted, ex officio, by the State and did not depend on the actions of the victim’s next of kin. In addition, the Court also observes that, according to the State’s subsequent actions, Vanderlei Garibaldi’s testimony was so important that, several years later, his statement before the InterAmerican Court led the Public Prosecutor’s Office to request the re-opening of the Investigation. Therefore, the Court finds that the State did not seek exhaustively to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements that would have allowed the facts concerning Sétimo Garibaldi’s death to be clarified. Failure to clarify contradictions in the testimonial statements 123. In addition, as indicated by the State and the witness before this Court, Fábio Guaragni,114 the request to close the investigation made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office was based principally on the information provided by police clerk Ribeiro that there were inconsistencies between the statements made by the witnesses (supra paras. 97 and 109). Despite possible discrepancies, no measure was taken to try and clarify them, such as a confrontation between the individuals whose statements were supposedly contradictory,115 and no other statements were sought that could have clarified the alleged differences. Omissions in the evidence and rendering evidence unusable 124. The Inter-American Court notes that the inadequate handling of the seized weapon could have rendered an important piece of evidence unusable. It was contrary to acceptable standards for an investigation that police clerk Ribeiro used the weapon of one of the accused, who he was arresting, following the act. Moreover, there was no rational basis for using the shot as a means of communication with other persons (supra para. 80). Thus, the condition and state of the weapon was altered, making it impossible for the expert appraisal designed to determine whether it had been fired recently to produce any type of result that could have been useful to the Investigation (supra para. 86).116 113 Cf. Testimony given by Vanderlei Garibaldi before notary public on February 3, 2009 (merits file, tome II, folios 1048 and 1049), and written expert opinion presented by Salo de Carvalho, supra note 61, folio 2532. The State did not contest the fact that it was Vanderlei Garibaldi who informed the police of the murder. 114 Cf. The State’s brief with final arguments, supra note 61, folio 1374, and testimony given by Fabio Guaragni at the public hearing, supra note 63. 115 As indicated by the Court (supra note 71), the witness Fabio Guaragni affirmed that there were differences between the statements made by the military police and by police clerk Ribeiro. Also, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts, supra note 107, folios 2339 and 2366: Art. 6. When informed that a criminal offense has been committed, the police authority must: [...] VI. Proceed to the identification of persons and objects and to confrontations; Art. 229. The confrontation shall be admitted between the accused, between the accused and a witness, between witnesses, between the accused or a witness and the victim, and between the victims, whenever their statements are at variance with regard to relevant facts or circumstances. Sole paragraph. Those confronted shall be re-questioned, so that they can explain the conflicting points, gradually decreasing the confrontations. 116 There is no record in the case file that this conduct was investigated by police clerk Ribeiro’s superiors, or by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the judge who were in charge of the Investigation. To the contrary, in July 2001, police clerk Ribeiro, who at that time was chief of police, took over the Investigation.