an ordinary law and takes into account the risks inherent in the work of defending human rights, including at a minimum the following requirements: 258 a) the equal participation of human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and experts in the development of legal frameworks for the protection of this group; b) flexible criteria for the inclusion of beneficiaries, taking into account the comments already made by this Court regarding the concept of a human rights defender; c) the development of a risk analysis model that adequately determines the risks and protection needs of each defender or group; d) the design of protection plans that take into account the risks faced by each defender and the nature of their work; e) the promotion of a culture that legitimizes and safeguards the work of human rights defenders; and f) E.3 the provision of sufficient human and financial resources to address the real protection needs of human rights defenders, as well as proper execution of the allocated budget. Data collection and production of statistics 178. The Court considers it necessary to collect comprehensive information on violence against human rights defenders in Brazil in order to determine the true magnitude of this phenomenon and design public strategies and policies for the prevention and eradication of this kind of violence. To that end, as it has in other cases, 259 the Court orders the State to design and implement within two years, through the corresponding State entity, a national system to compile data and figures related to cases of violence against human rights defenders in order to precisely and uniformly assess the types, prevalence, trends, and patterns of violence against human rights defenders, disaggregating the data by state, ethnicity, organization, gender, and age. The number of cases prosecuted should also be recorded, specifying the number of indictments, convictions, and acquittals. The State shall publish this information each year in the corresponding report, ensuring that the general public has access to it, while keeping the identity of the victims confidential. The State must present the Court with an annual report detailing the relevant actions taken for five years following the implementation of the data collection system. E.4 Mechanism for reopening judicial proceedings 179. In the sub judice case, as in other cases concerning Brazil, 260 the Court has observed the persistence of impunity due to a lack of due diligence on the part of judicial authorities as well as failures to determine criminal responsibility within a reasonable timeframe, which have undoubtedly contributed to criminal cases exceeding the statute of limitations. The authorities failed to fully clarify the circumstances of the crime, identify those responsible, and punish them. 258 Cf. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 263, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 222. Cf. Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 252, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 179. 259 See, for example, Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 311–312; Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil, supra, paras. 230–231; and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 121–123. 260 46