17 process of law violated at any time. The jury trial of Otávio Ernesto Moreira was transferred from the city of Macaíba to the city of Natal in view of strong, well-founded concerns about the impartiality of the jury. This was owing to the fact that in the same year when the Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho case would be taken to trial with Otávio Ernesto Moreira as the defendant, Francisco Gilberto Nogueira de Carvalho, the brother of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, became deputy mayor of Macaíba. There was a possibility that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial for Otávio Ernesto Moreira could be compromised. In addition, Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho and his family were well known in the city, whereas Otávio Ernesto Moreira was a stranger in Macaíba. Three different situations can lead to a transfer of venue for a jury trial: when such a transfer would be in the public interest, when there are concerns about the impartiality of the jury or when the personal safety of the defendant may be in jeopardy. The Office of the Public Prosecutor defended the thesis that there were grounds to convict Otávio Ernesto Moreira, but there was also a possibility that the defendant was innocent. The witness explained that the jury hearing the case against defendant Ot��vio Ernesto Moreira was asked, first of all, whether Moreira may have fired the shots that produced the lesions described in the autopsy report on Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. He noted that this question could not have been worded any other way, because it was impossible to disassociate the shots allegedly fired by the accused from the death of the victim; in other words, the question could not accommodate the possibility that the perpetrator had shot and missed the target. The question as asked was consistent with the hypothesis as to the perpetrator of the crime. The jury, by a majority of five votes to two, decided that responsibility for committing the crime could not be demonstrated clearly enough to produce a conviction. The appeal lodged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor with the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Norte against the decision of the jury did not seek to rectify problems of invalidity, but rather addressed the merits of the judgment. The witness also brought up a statement that Angélica da Silva Campelino had rendered during a judicial process separate from the trials for the deaths of Antônio Lopes and Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, in which she named a third person who had heard information on the death of the latter. Therefore the witness concluded that this third person should have been called to provide more concrete evidence. The witness also said that James Cavallaro and John Maier had delivered a cassette tape to the Federal Police and that the tape had been added to the case file of the investigation. This tape made reference to three police officers who may have acted with Otávio Ernesto Moreira in the alleged death squad; the three were also questioned and investigated. The witness pointed out that further evidence would be needed to attach Lumar Pinto, Palmério and Gilson Ramos, the police officers named by Otávio Ernesto Moreira in his statement, to whom the latter had lent his shotgun, to the case of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. Otávio Ernesto Moreira denied that his weapon was used in the crime and that it was unavailable to him that day. Furthermore, the names of these officers did not correspond to those who had been fingered as members of the “golden boys” death squad, and therefore the statement by Otávio Ernesto Moreira had no value as evidence. The witness clarified that the police investigation had examined only the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, and therefore the investigations involving deaths possibly committed by the “golden boys” lay outside its scope. C) EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE