case of the murder of a human rights defender, given the need to combat the negative effects of impunity. They argue that each stage of the criminal trial was characterized by “alarming delays” and long periods of time in which no procedural steps were taken; (v) violated the competent judge principle by sending the case to the Agrarian Court, which led to the “unreasonable and groundless” paralysis of the trial for 18 months; and (vi) violated the right of access to justice by declaring the case time-barred, even though the delays had been solely attributable to the “obstructive” and “negligent actions” of the investigative and judicial authorities. 75. With respect to the alleged violations in the context of the action for compensation against the state of Pará, initiated by the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, the representatives noted that the family still has not received a final decision even though it has been over 14 years since they filed it. They stated that the “unjustified delay” argument is based exclusively on the negligence of the authorities. 76. Furthermore, the representatives indicated that the State withheld information of relevance to the case and did not establish necessary procedures or mechanisms to bring the truth to light. They therefore argued that the State is responsible for violating the right to the truth by preventing Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family and Brazilian society from knowing the true circumstances of the death of Mr. Sales Pimenta, and by hindering the identification and punishment of those responsible. 77. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the American Convention, the State argued that responsibility for the alleged failures in the investigation and criminal prosecution of those involved in the death of Gabriel Sales Pimenta “is absolutely outside the ratio essendi” of Article 8, because neither he nor any of his family members was tried in a domestic court, and the supposed omissions or failures are not related to any criminal or civil proceedings in which they have declared as such. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 25 of the convention, it argued that the State had appropriate, effective domestic remedies that the alleged victims used, and others that are still in process in connection with this case. It added that all of the steps taken in the course of the criminal trial were done in a rigorous manner with the aim of identifying the perpetrators and ultimately punishing them. It argued that the representatives did not provide any evidence that in the criminal or civil proceedings private actors influenced public officials to ensure their impunity or vice versa. It stated that the alleged impunity with respect to the murder cannot be connected to actions taken during the investigation, which even resulted in the identification of responsible individuals. 78. Finally, regarding the alleged responsibility for unjustified delays and the declaration that the statute of limitations had passed, the State argued that these lack merit because the legal authorities complied with criminal law and criminal procedure law, acting in accordance with the procedural guarantees for defendants. 139 79. Regarding the sending of the records between the Criminal and Agrarian Courts, it stated that since an Agrarian Court had been created in the region, it was justifiable to send the case to it, given that agrarian judges are responsible for trying and prosecuting crimes principally motivated by agrarian concerns. With respect to the orders for detention, including pretrial detention, it explained that despite the challenges encountered, the search for the defendant in contempt, M.C.N., continued, and on November 18, 2005, the order for his pretrial detention was renewed. 139 The State noted that, as the defendant was 74 years old when he was accused and 17 years had passed between the first action that interrupted the statute of limitations (the Court receiving the accusation) and the second interruption of the statute of limitations (the decision to indict), the Court of Justice of Pará rightly declared the case time-barred and terminated criminal liability due to the passage of more than ten years (the applicable length of time after the reduction by half due to the defendant’s age) between the interruption points of the statute of limitations. 24