He concluded that the judge's conduct did not constitute a disciplinary offense and closed the case file. 10. The representatives stated that the delay in the investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi continues without any justification. There has been no analysis with regard to the prejudice caused by a police investigation that has taken more than 12 years, and several procedures that were not conducted. These procedures included an expert appraisal of the weapon seized with regard to Ailton Lobato, which the representatives have considered an extremely serious element from their outset. The State “is unable to show that its investigations have been diligent.” Regarding the investigation of the possible offenses by State officials responsible for the investigation, the representatives reiterated the observations included in their final written arguments. Lastly, they stated that, even though the offenses of the officials have prescribed, “it is of fundamental importance that the [State] acknowledge the responsibility of these agents and enable Sétimo Garibaldi’s family to have access to the truth regarding the facts. The premature closure of the file on the administrative inquiries […] reveals the strong corporate spirit among the institutions.” 11. The Inter-American Commission appreciated the fact that Brazil is pressing charges against an individual who is allegedly responsible and continues investigating whether other individuals are responsible. It indicated its concern because the proceedings to investigate the conduct of the officials involved in the investigation of the facts had been closed “without any serious and complete analysis of their execution of the investigation of the case, and even referring to the impossibility of continuing with other proceedings owing to the prescription of administrative sanctions.” It concluded that the State continues to fail to comply with its obligation to investigate the possible offenses committed by public officials in charge of the investigation. 12. The Inter-American Court observes that, in its reports, the State referred to judicial and administrative proceedings conducted before and after the order of the Court of February 22, 2011. Regarding progress in the investigation after the said order, it reported, inter alia, that: (a) in September 2010, one of the individuals under investigation had died; (b) on June 30, 2011, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against Morival Favoreto; (c) the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Paraná ordered that certain procedures be conducted urgently in order to expedite the proceedings, and (d) a hearing on the investigation and prosecution was set for November 22, 2011. 13. In addition, the Court takes note of the information provided on the administrative proceedings opened after the judgment in this case was delivered with regard to the police officials, and the officials of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the courts who were involved in the investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi. In this regard, the Court observes that the representatives recognize the “impossibility of holding the agents responsible” who were involved in the police inquiry, because the offenses have prescribed.” However, they asked the State “to acknowledge the responsibility of these agents” and to provide the victim’s family with access to the “truth regarding the facts.” The Court notes that the representatives presented observations on the conduct of the State agents but not on the administrative inquiries carried out by the corregedorias of the police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the judicial authorities. 14. From the information provided by Brazil, the Court finds that the State conducted administrative investigations as ordered in the judgment. It reached well-founded conclusions in those proceedings and decided to close them. Moreover, the Court has not received any specific arguments or evidence indicating irregularities in the administrative 4