90. Bearing in mind the arguments of the parties and the Commission, and limiting itself to the analysis of events that occurred after the date of recognition of the Court's contentious jurisdiction, the Court will analyze below the alleged violations in the following order: (1) due diligence in the criminal trial; (2) a reasonable timeframe; (3) the right to the truth; and (4) conclusion. b.1 Due diligence in the criminal trial 91. The Court recalls that in this case Brazil had an enhanced obligation to conduct the investigation into the death of Mr. Sales Pimenta with due diligence due to his work as a human rights defender. 92. First, the Court considers it appropriate to stress that, even though the record shows a series of state actions and omissions during the investigations prior to the date of recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction on December 10, 1998, the consequences of those actions and omissions persisted throughout the criminal trial. 93. Specifically, the key events after December 10, 1998, that show Brazil's lack of due diligence in prosecuting and punishing all those responsible for the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta are: (i) the failure to identify and analyze the context in which he carried out his work in defense of rural workers’ human rights; (ii) the failure to adopt protective measures for eyewitnesses, especially given the context of violence and impunity in land struggles in Brazil; (iii) the failure to investigate the death of the defendant J.P.N. during the stage of the “pronúncia” judgment and the death of the eyewitness Luzia Batista da Silva during the analysis of the case by the Jury Court; (iv) the exclusion of C.O.S. as a defendant in the “pronúncia” judgment due to a lack of evidence, given that the lack of evidence was a direct result of the failure to carry out certain essential investigative tasks; (v) the failure to take sufficient measures to ensure M.C.N.’s appearance at the procedural steps that required his presence and to follow appropriate procedures to apprehend him when there were detention orders against him; and (vi) sending the criminal case to the Agrarian Court when the Jury Court clearly had jurisdiction. The Court will discuss each of these facts below. 94. As the body of evidence in this case shows, and in light of statements by expert witness Kalil in a hearing, 156 the Court confirms that at no point during the criminal trial for the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta, even after December 10, 1998, did authorities take into consideration the context in which the victim defended human rights. If they had, it would have been possible to identify the economic and political interests that could have been affected by Mr. Sales Pimenta’s work, particularly with respect to the judicial decision that reversed the expulsion of 150 individuals from the lands claimed by the landowners, a decision that had been taken in response to a remedy presented by the alleged victim shortly before his death (supra para. 53). There is no record that the Public Prosecutor's Office or the judicial authorities ever requested measures to determine whether the result of that action, which had significant public implications, could have been linked to the motive for the death. Such a determination could have also allowed for the identification of other 156 The expert witness Kalil emphasized that all allegations of violence against those who defend the rights and interests of workers should be thoroughly investigated, and the possibility of a connection, whether direct or indirect, between the violent act and the work of defending the rights of workers should be considered. [...] [T]he body investigating a human rights violation must examine the complexity of the events, the context in which they occurred, and the patterns that explain the reasons for the events [...,] to ensure that no evidence has been omitted and all reasonable lines of inquiry have been pursued. It is thus critical to take the steps necessary to assess systematic patterns that allowed the human rights violations to occur, as well as the mechanisms and structures that enable impunity. Expert opinion of Renan Kalil during the public hearing of this case. 27