by the Court is essential for evaluating the status of compliance with the judgment as a whole.5 a) Obligation to investigate the facts of the case and prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible 8. Regarding the obligation to conduct the investigation effectively and within a reasonable time, together with any proceedings that may be opened as a result of the investigation, in order to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish the authors of Mr. Garibaldi’s death, established in the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment, the State advised that, on April 25, 2011, the file of the investigation had been forwarded to the courts for assessment by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the competent judge. It added that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had advised that it would waive the non-essential procedures that were pending so that “the case can be concluded finally.” In addition, on June 30, 2011, the Prosecutor of the municipality of Loanda “filed charges against Morival Favoreto.” The Office of the Attorney General of the state of Paraná required that the case be processed urgently and that certain procedures be conducted by the civil police. The hearing on the investigation and prosecution was set for November 22, 2011. 9. Regarding the inquiry into possible offenses committed in the course of their functions by authorities in charge of the investigations, Brazil indicated that: a) The Inspectorate General (Corregedoria Geral) of the Police had conducted a preliminary investigation in relation to three police officers; based on this, it did not find any evidence of disciplinary offenses during the investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi. However, the inspector stated that it had been proved that a police officer “used the confiscated firearm, firing a shot in the air in an area prone to conflict,” in violation of articles 210.V, 212, 213.XII and XLI of Law LC 14/82 that establish penalties of warning, reprimand or suspension and resignation. Disciplinary offenses prescribe in two and five years and, in particular, “the perpetration of [a] possible offense of firing a weapon […] would have prescribed.” Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the file of this administrative investigation be closed owing to lack of evidence regarding authorship; b) With regard to the prosecutors who acted in the case, two administrative procedures were conducted, one by the Inspectorate General (Corregedoria Geral) of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the state of Paraná, and the other by the National Inspectorate (Corregedoria) of the National Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The former, which took place in 2006, concluded that the prosecutor acted in the case “in accordance with his conscience and also based on the laws in force”; hence, it closed the proceedings. The latter inquiry, launched by the National Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in response to the judgment of the Court, archived the complaint owing to the “inexistence of evidence leading to the conclusion that any disciplinary offense has been committed by a member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the state of Paraná,” and c) Following the judgment of the Inter-American Court, the Inspector General (Corregedor Geral) of Justice of the state of Paraná launched an inquiry into the conduct of the judge responsible for the case concerning the death of Mr. Garibaldi. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 2, fifth considering paragraph. 3