58 212. Arlei José Escher and Dalton Luciano de Vargas filed civil actions for compensation against the state of Paraná, on May 14, 2004, and on May 15, 2007, respectively;188 in other words, five and seven years after the facts. 213. Civil action No. 48,598/07 filed by Dalton Luciano de Vargas was deemed to be irreceivable in first instance, because “the State’s responsibility for the judicial act does not arise solely in cases of judicial error [and] a judge cannot be made responsible for his or her interpretation of the norm or for the weight attributed to the facts; otherwise the functioning of justice would be prejudiced and the independence of the judge compromised […]. Consequently, no damage exists that can be attributed to the [State].”189 Dalton Luciano de Vargas appealed this decision. The appeal was forwarded for examination by the Court of Justice on June 9, 2008. Civil action No. 431/04, filed by Arlei José Escher, was not heard in first instance. Both proceedings are pending a final judgment. Despite this, the Court does not have the respective procedural case files or other elements that could prove the lack of effectiveness of the civil actions and possible violations of the rights embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. * * * 214. Based on the above, the Court does not have any elements that prove the existence of a violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention as regards the mandado de segurança, and the civil actions examined in this case (supra paras. 199 and 213). However, in relation to the criminal proceedings and administrative procedures mentioned (supra paras. 204, 205 and 209), the Court concludes that the State violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni. X ARTICLE 28 (FEDERAL CLAUSE)190 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 215. The Commission indicated that, in light of Article 28 of the Convention, “Brazil should have ensured that the state of Paraná adopt measures to provide those affected by the telephone intervention with a guarantee designed to avoid it, and should have made appropriate remedies available to end the intervention, if due legal process determined that this was in order.” This Article “gives rise to the Federal Government’s obligation to take pertinent measures to ensure that the competent authorities of the states of the Federation or Union […] are able to adopt provisions to comply with the said treaty.” The Commission 188 Cf. Procedural motion referring to the civil action for reparation of damage filed by Dalton Luciano de Vargas, supra note 114, folio 2125; procedural motion referring to the civil action for reparation of damage filed by Arley José Escher, supra note 114, folio 2127. 189 Cf. Judgment of the 4th Vara da Fazenda Pública of Curitiba of August 9, 2007, supra note 114, folio 1940. 190 Article 28 of the American Convention establishes: 1. Where a State Party is constituted as a federal state, the national government of such State Party shall implement all the provisions of the Convention over whose subject matter it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction. 2. With respect to the provisions over whose subject matter the constituent units of the federal state have jurisdiction, the national government shall immediately take suitable measures, in accordance with its constitution and its laws, to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units may adopt appropriate provisions for the fulfillment of this Convention. 3. Whenever two or more States Parties agree to form a federation or other type of association, they shall take care that the resulting federal or other compact contains the provisions necessary for continuing and rendering effective the standards of this Convention in the new state that is organized.