50 affected the image and credibility of the associations. Hence, they altered the free and normal exercise of the right to freedom of association of the abovementioned members of COANA and ADECON, and this entailed an interference that is contrary to the American Convention. Based on the above, the State violated the right to freedom of association established in Article 16 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect rights embodied in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni. IX ARTICLES 8(1) (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)167 AND 25(1) (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION)168 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 181. The Commission indicated that the inexistence of an effective remedy to counter violations of the rights established in the Convention constitutes a violation of the Convention by the State Party and places the individual in a situation of defenselessness. It stated that it was not enough that the remedies existed formally, but rather “their application by the competent authority should be effective.” The victims resorted to the national courts to obtain the protection of fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution, in domestic law, and in the American Convention, by filing the mandado de segurança and the embargos de declaração in order to obtain the cessation of the recordings and the destruction of the tapes. However, the domestic court did not examine the merits of the victims’ claims,” by not ruling on the request for the destruction of the tapes. The Commission considered that “the results of the remedies filed in the domestic sphere indicate […] a series of interferences in the private life of the victims [and in] their right to associate and that the State did not respond with due diligence.” Given “these judicial decisions, the victims lacked an effective judicial remedy to protect their right to privacy, which constituted a violation of the rights protected by Articles 8(1) and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.” 182. In its application, the Commission also indicated with regard to the criminal investigation into the facts, that “in its Report on Merits […] it decided not to examine a potential violation of the rights to judicial protection and to judicial guarantees with regard to the acquittal of the authors of the human rights violations that are the subject of this case, because this did not necessarily entail a violation of Articles 8 or 25 of the Convention. During the proceedings before it, the Commission did not receive evidence proving that the criminal proceedings were conducted irregularly or outside the parameters established in Article 8 of the Convention.” However, it insisted that “the State has the obligation to investigate human rights violations, prosecute those responsible and avoid impunity” and therefore “it should conduct an investigation to determine the administrative, civil or any other responsibilities of the public officials involved in the violations of the human rights [of the victims].” During the public hearing in this case, the Commission stated that it “disagreed absolutely with [the State’s opinion] that a judicial error was not 167 In this regard, Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes: 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. […] 168 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.