the alleged victim’s] and Sebastiao Félix da Silva) managed to escape by running, although shots were fired at them from behind. Joao Maximiniano da Silva was detained by the private security guards for a few moments and then released. 14. That very day, workers from the camp where the alleged victim had lived went to the District Police to report the murder of Mr. Manoel Luiz da Silva. Nevertheless, the petitioners contend, six years after the events in question, those responsible for the murder had still not been brought to trial. The petitioners allege that there is strong evidence suggesting that police and members of the local judiciary are conniving with landowners in the region, allowing crimes such as this one, committed against landless workers, to go unpunished. The petitioners point out that the public prosecutor’s office charged only two of the private security guards with murder and that the owner of the ranch, Alcides Vieira de Azevedo, was never charged as the intellectual author of the crime. 15. The petitioners allege that the State has incurred in international responsibility for violation of Articles 4, 1.1, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim, represented by his next of kin. 16. In the additional information received on October 24, 2005, the petitioners assert that in November 2004, the Paraiba State Court held that criminal proceedings should be prosecuted only in the case of guard Severino da Silva, because José Caetano da Silva had not been properly advised of the charge against him. The petitioners report that the date set for Severino da Silva’s trial was September 21, 2005; when the day arrived, however, the trial was postponed until December 20, 2005, because the defendant was not represented by counsel. 17. Summarizing, the petitioners are requesting that the Commission recommend that the State investigate and criminally prosecute and punish those responsible for the alleged victim’s murder; that it compensate his next of kin; that effective measures be taken to protect the rights of landless rural workers, and that legislative measures be adopted to clear the way so that the federal justice system can prosecute human rights crimes, committed in areas where agrarian disputes are occurring. B. The State 18. The State begins by asserting that the remedies under domestic law to settle the case have not been exhausted and enters an objection to that effect. It argues that the District Court of Pilar, in the state of Paraiba is hearing a criminal case against defendants José 4