considered to no longer have purpose, as the criminal case had already been closed after being found time-barred. 125 70. Additionally, on November 22, 2007, the mother of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta, filed a petition for compensation from the state of Pará for pain and suffering resulting from delays in the criminal proceedings and the consequent lack of justice for her son’s murder. 126 On September 23, 2010, and March 24, 2011, two preliminary hearings were scheduled with the aim of reaching a settlement. 127 After unproductive settlement discussions, a hearing was held on March 24, 2011, to hear from the witnesses, and on August 16-17, 2011, the final arguments were presented. 128 On October 5, 2011, the Third Civil Court of the Judicial District of Marabá found the petition admissible and ordered the state of Pará to pay compensation of BRL 700,000 (seven hundred thousand reais) to Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta. 129 On November 3, 2011, the state of Pará appealed the judgment. In response, the Court of Justice admitted the appeal and on June 2, 2016, ruled against the state’s responsibility and denied payment of compensation. 130 After several unsuccessful appeals filed by the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, on June 8, 2021, the First Division of the Superior Court of Justice denied the final appeal. 131 The decision was finalized on September 13, 2021. 132 VIII MERITS 71. The sub judice case concerns alleged shortcomings in the legal proceedings following the violent death of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, attorney and defender of rural workers in Pará. On this point, the Court notes that Mr. Sales Pimenta’s 133 work as a human rights defender is an uncontested fact. 134 Bearing in mind the arguments of the parties and the Commission as well as the Court's 125 Cf. Decision signed by the National Inspector (“Corregedor”) of Justice on September 12, 2008 (evidence file, folio 6265), and Follow-up sheet for trial No. 200710000004997 before the National Council of Justice (evidence file, folios 2037– 2038). Cf. Civil damages suit for pain and suffering brought by Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta, supra (evidence file, folios 2711–2770). 126 127 2015). Cf. Order issued by the Third Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Marabá on October 5, 2011 (evidence file, folios Cf. Record of instruction and trial hearing from March 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2008–2012); Final arguments presented by the attorneys of Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta on August 19, 2011 (evidence file, folios 5426–5434); and Final arguments presented by the attorneys of Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta on August 16, 2011 (evidence file, folios 5435–5439). 128 129 Cf. Judgment issued by the Third Civil Court of the Judicial District of Marabá, supra (evidence file, folio 2023). Cf. Decision issued by the Fifth Independent Civil Division of the Court of Justice of the state of Pará on June 2, 2016 (evidence file, folios 2170 and 2181–2182). 130 131 Cf. Decision issued by the Fifth Independent Civil Division of the Court of Justice of the state of Pará on July 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 2184); Decision of the Fifth Independent Civil Division of the Court of Justice of the state of Pará on September 15, 2016 (evidence file, folios 6300–6305); Decision issued by the President of the Court of Justice of the state of Pará on June 26 and October 3, 2017 (evidence file, folios 6307–6318); Decision issued by the Superior Court of Justice on July 29, 2018 (evidence file, folios 6327–6328); and Decision issued by the Superior Court of Justice on June 8, 2021 (evidence file, folios 6333–6334). Cf. Certification of res judicata issued in the proceedings of action No. 0007348-91.2007.8.14.0028 for compensation for pain and suffering on September 13, 2021 (evidence file, folio 8547). 132 133 This Court has held that the status of human rights defender is defined by the work carried out, regardless of whether the person is a private citizen or a public official. In this regard, the Court has referred to the monitoring, reporting, and education activities carried out by human rights defenders, emphasizing that the defense of rights not only applies to civil and political rights, but also necessarily covers economic, social, and cultural rights, according to the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence. (Cf. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 129). Furthermore, as expert witness Renan Kalil noted, “workers’ leaders, insofar as they defend the rights and interests of workers, act as human rights defenders [...], [which] involves risks and threats from non-state actors, which can be exacerbated by social norms and stereotypes.” Written version of Renan Kalil’s expert opinion from April 20, 2022 (evidence file, folio 8697). 134 The state authorities were aware of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s work as a human rights defender. Cf. Record No. ANATAG/15/82, supra (evidence file, folios 2202–2206); Report of police superintendent Luiz Carlos de Carvalho on 22