notification of M.C.N. was sent to the address obtained by the Federal Revenue Service (in Brumado, Bahía), but it was not located. 113 On the day set for the trial, February 15, 2006, the defendant failed to appear. 114 On that same day, the states were asked to report on compliance with the detention orders. At least nine states reported that they had not received them or that the requests they had received did not meet the minimum requirements. 115 On February 24, 2006, a team of three Federal Police agents was formed to search for the defendant in the states of Bahía, Minas Gerais, and “others as necessary.” 116 67. On March 6, 2006, M.C.N. provided his address in Brumado, Bahía. 117 On April 3, 2006, the Federal Police was able to carry out the pretrial detention order upon locating the defendant in another place: the city of Pitangui, in Minas Gerais. 118 The trial was then scheduled for April 27, 2006. 119 On April 10, 2006, the defendant’s attorneys filed a motion for habeas corpus before the Court of Justice of Pará to request house arrest or termination of criminal liability on the basis of the statute of limitations. 120 The Public Prosecutor's Office was also in favor of declaring that the statute of limitations had passed. 121 However, the attorneys acting as assistants for the prosecution denied that the crime was time-barred. 122 68. On May 2, 2006, the request for termination of criminal liability was denied by the first instance judge of the Criminal Court of Marabá. 123 On May 8, 2006, the Combined Criminal Divisions of the Court of Justice of Pará issued a decision to the contrary and declared the criminal liability terminated. 124 C.2. Additional steps taken by the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta 69. In June of 2007, Rafael Sales Pimenta submitted a complaint before the National Council of Justice, in which he argued that the criminal trial proceedings for his brother’s murder were taking an excessive amount of time. On September 12, 2008, the complaint was dismissed because it was Cf. Request from the substitute judge of law of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Marabá on November 21, 2005 (evidence file, folio 2556). 113 114 Cf. Record of the jury trial session of February 15, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2587). Cf. Record of the jury trial session of February 15, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2589) and Responses 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 31 from March 2006 (evidence file, folios 2597–2611). 115 Cf. Letter No. 45/2006-GAB/DPF.B/MBA/PA signed by the chief of the Federal Police office in Marabá on February 24, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2613). 116 Cf. Letter signed by the attorney of M.C.N. on March 6, 2006, which included the power of attorney granted by M.C.N. as well as his address (evidence file, folios 2615–2616). 117 118 Cf. Letter No. 085/2006-NO/DREX/SR/DPF/PA from April 3, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2618). Cf. Request from the substitute judge of law of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Marabá on April 5, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2625). 119 120 The attorneys argued that prosecution of the crime was time-barred on the basis of Articles 109 and 115 of the Criminal Code. They declared that the statute of limitations had expired because the defendant was over 80 years old and more than ten years had passed since the last procedural step. They stated that in accordance with Article 109, section I, the maximum statute of limitations for punitive claims related to homicide is 20 years and that Article 115 of the Criminal Code reduces by half the statutes of limitation for cases in which a convicted person is over 70 years old as of the date of the judgment. Cf. Habeas corpus filed on behalf of M.C.N. on April 10, 2006 (evidence file, folios 2628–2640). 121 Cf. Request by the Public Prosecutor's Office on April 12, 2006, that the statute of limitations be declared expired (evidence file, folios 2643–2644). 122 Cf. Brief of the Pastoral Land Commission referring to the request that the statute of limitations be declared expired, received on April 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 2646–2650). Cf. Order issued by the Fourth Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Marabá on May 2, 2006 (evidence file, folios 2652–2665). 123 124 Cf. Note from the President of the Combined Criminal Divisions on May 8, 2006, communicating the decision (evidence file, folio 2667) and Order of release No. 028/2006 signed by the President of the Combined Criminal Divisions on May 8, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2668). Publication of the ruling on May 8, 2005 in the official gazette of the state of Pará on May 18, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2674). 21