57. It is also an undisputed fact that the reopening of the proceedings mentioned by the State in its note of June 2000 refers to only one of those accused of the murder of Gilson Nogueira, and that that reopening was not due to any urge to investigate and indict on the part of the State but a result of pressure exerted by human rights defenders and local and foreign journalists, who managed to persuade a former policeman involved in the activities of the “Golden Boys” death squad to tell them about those activities and the plot to murder Gilson Nogueira, together with the names of the perpetrators. This information was corroborated to the extent that the weapon used in the crime was found on a plot belonging to one of the policemen accused. Only the actions undertaken by these human rights defenders proved capable of provoking a response from the Federal Police (not the state police, nor military court prosecutors) and achieving a partial reopening of the case. 58. It is also an undisputed fact that the reopening of proceedings concerned only one of the five policemen involved, since the investigations focused exclusively on the responsibility of the civilian policeman, Otavio Ernesto. The State has not conducted any other serious and effective inquiry into the criminal association of the other policemen and civilian authorities accused along with the policeman currently on trial, despite the fact that human rights defenders have submitted evidence linking them to the crime. 59. There has been unwarranted delay in moving ahead with this case, primarily due to the lack of a proper investigation, which led to its being shelved, and then due to the absence of investigations or proceedings against the majority of those responsible. The Commission has been told that, as of the date of this report, no date has yet been set for the trial of the only accused. 60. The Commission considers that the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement is subject, under Article 46(2)(1), to the existence of effective domestic remedies. In the Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, the Court maintained that the merely theoretical existence of legal remedies is not sufficient for this objection to be invoked: they have to be effective, They are not effective when “formal requirements make them inapplicable in practice; the authorities against whom they were brought simply ignored them, or because attorneys and judges were threatened and intimidated by those authorities.” 19 61. As emerges from the information in the petition, the additional information provided, and in the various different requests for precautionary measures, none of which has been disputed by the State, inquiries by the military courts, the state police, the Attorney General’s office, and the judicial authorities have been –and in this case– are still ineffective. The Commission would again like to point out that it had to ask the State to take steps to protect senior officials in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, justice outreach workers, attorneys, and human rights defenders, all of whom have been threatened and intimidated. 62. In principle the intimidation would appear to be continuing in the form of lawsuits against two human rights defense attorneys for alleged libel offenses, for having repeated to the press the testimony they gave to the judge in the case. ii. Filing Period 63. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention stipulates that for a petition to be admissible, it must be submitted to the Commission within six months of the date on which the petitioner was notified of the final ruling. The Commission finds in the instant case that the decision to shelve the case constitutes a final decision for determining the filing period. Since the petition was placed before the Commission on December 11, 1997, within six months from the date the case was shelved (June 19, 1997), the Commission concludes that this requirement has been met. In the alternative, since the Commission notes that the petitioners meet at least one of the exceptions under Article 46(2) of the Convention, the 6 month filing period does not apply as is stated in Article 46(2). iii. Duplication of Proceedings and Res Judicata 19 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales, Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paragraph 102. 9