9 25. The delay in processing the supplemental complaint took even longer, as it was only on June 17, 2006 that the Judge of Sobral County received it. When doing so, he sought to justify his own delay due to the “high volume of work of the 3rd County Court of Sobral” and to a “30-day holidays” plus “60 days of sick-leave.” That is, the supplemental complaint was received only 8 months and 25 days after having been filed. At that time, the above mentioned County Judge summoned the new defendants and ordered the issuance of an “urgent” summons for the deputy prosecutor and the defense attorneys to submit their closing arguments. That is to say, the so called “urgent” summons was for the others, and not for himself, thus constituting a portrait of the “justice” ritual of the domestic law, not only of the Responsive Government sued before this Court, but also of so many other Governments in different latitudes. At that time, the criminal action of the cas d'espèce had already taken more than 4 years and 2 months without even a first instance judgment having been rendered. 26. In the public hearing of November 30 and December 1 before this InterAmerican Court on this case, I reminded the acting parties of the State duty of “effective response by the judicial system within a reasonable time” under the American Convention, and mentioned the permanent need – not only as a Brazilian issue, but as an issue concerning every country – “of training national judges in human rights matters, which was evident in this case, both in this hearing and in its examination.25 Let me remind you of a warning following the same reasoning, expressed a decade and a half ago, during a historic and pioneer Seminar of national mobilization regarding Brazil’s adherence to the American Convention and to the two Human Rights Treaties of the United Nations; at that time, emeritus Professor Washington Peluso Albino de Souza, when referring -during the debates- to the “organization dynamics of the judicial power” focused on the “career” and on the type of “formation” offered by the Law Schools, quite lucidly stated that: "The need of reality penetration for the knowledge of the Law is rarely fostered. Instead, the dogmatic method is practiced, forming judges who turn to be legalist by conviction. If the law is set aside from reality, the resulting judgment shall also be so. This is how, with full professional certainty, injustice is committed in the name of Law. That explains the lack of confidence in justice of the citizenship in our country, with consequent adages such as “a bad agreement is better than a good lawsuit.”26 V. Direct Applicability of the American Convention in Domestic Law and Guarantees of Non-Repetition of Libelous Acts. 27. Fortunately, today the justifiable in the Respondent Government also count on international jurisdiction for the vindication of their rights. As I said in my opening speech of the judicial year of the European Human Rights Court in 2004, -as . Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Transcript of Public Hearing..., op. cit. supra n. (3), pp. 123-124. 25 . Cit. in: A.A. Cançado Trindade, A Proteção dos Direitos Humanos nos Planos Nacional e Internacional: Perspectivas Brasileiras (Minutes of the Brasilia Seminar of 1991), Brasília/San José de Costa Rica, IIDH/F.-Naumann-Stiftung, 1992, p. 170 (intervenção do Prof. Washington P. Albino de Souza). 26