166. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to (i) strengthen the Human Rights Defenders Protection Program, focusing on the prevention of acts of violence against human rights defenders working on behalf of rural workers in Brazil; (ii) carry out an independent, rigorous, candid assessment of the situation of human rights defenders in the context of land conflicts with the aim of adopting structural measures to enable the detection and eradication of sources of risk to the defenders. This assessment is to include, among other elements, an analysis of the unequal distribution of land as a structural cause of the violence; and (iii) improve its ability to investigate crimes against human rights defenders. 167. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to (i) develop a national protocol of due diligence for the investigation of crimes against human rights defenders, which should comprehensively regulate the actions of bodies involved in the investigation of crimes against human rights defenders, including the Public Prosecutor's Office, the police, and the judiciary, with the aim of responding appropriately and quickly to such crimes. It should also consider the participation of civil society; (ii) create an information system on violations of the rights of human rights defenders with specific, detailed information on official responses; (iii) create specialized units within offices of the prosecutor general at both the federal and state levels; (iv) create a “Commission to Combat Violence against Human Rights Defenders” that has a diverse membership and that makes information on its cases and activities available to the public; and (v) carry out training sessions for officials responsible for investigating violations against human rights defenders with the aim of fostering due diligence in those investigations. Moreover, in an effort to facilitate due diligence in its conduct, it should promote a course on the protection of human rights defenders, including those defending land rights. The representatives also supported the Commission’s request that the Human Rights Defenders Protection Program be strengthened. Specifically, they requested the “formalization” of that program as a public policy, and that it involve civil society participation and have an “appropriate budget sufficient for the other states” of Brazil. 168. The State asserted that it is already firmly committed to protecting human rights defenders. It stated that there is an official structure to protect them and to combat rural conflict and violence. Specifically, it noted (i) the Program for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Activists, and Environmentalists, which it stated is compliant with the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the American Convention and rests on a public policy of the State (Decree 6.044); (ii) institutions related to “combating rural conflict and violence,” such as the Institute for Applied Economic Research and the National Institute for Settlement and Agrarian Reform; (iii) in the state of Pará specifically, an ombudsman for agrarian issues, 233 “commissions specialized in agrarian conflict,” five specialized units of the civil police for rural conflicts, the Commission for the Mediation of Land Conflicts, and the Land Registry System; and (iv) projects such as the National Ballistic Analysis System. Furthermore, in its final written arguments, it noted the existence of the National Prison Monitoring Database, the budgetary execution level for the Human Rights Defenders Protection Program, as well as its composition, the number of individuals helped, and the ways civil society could be involved in its implementation. E.1 National protocol of due diligence for the investigation of crimes against human rights defenders 169. In chapter VIII-1 of this judgment, the Court noted that the criminal proceedings were stalled at different points due to the inertia of state authorities, and it concluded that Brazil did not make a full effort within a reasonable timeframe to enable a swift determination of the truth and the identification and punishment of all those responsible, including pursuing and capturing the defendants in order to put them on trial. The Court also observed that this case is situated within a 233 “Ouvidoria Agrária” in Portuguese. 42