29 103. The representatives alleged that there are sufficient elements to prove the State’s responsibility for the violation of the judicial guarantees of Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin. They maintained that the State must act diligently, in order to ensure that investigations are conducted genuinely and not as a mere formality predestined to be ineffective, respecting the requirements of independence, effectiveness and promptness. The victims of human rights violations have the right to a rapid solution to such offenses and to the State authorities resolving them within a reasonable time. The investigation that is the subject of the instant case lasted almost six years and was marred by errors and the negligence and partiality of the State authorities. Even though sufficient elements existed to file criminal proceedings against the suspects, the investigative procedure was closed without identifying those responsible for Mr. Garibaldi’s death, and this crime remains in absolute impunity. 104. The representatives alleged the following irregularities, among others, in the investigation: (a) by rejecting the request for the pre-trial detention of Morival Favoreto on December 14, 1998, Judge Khater acted in his favor, because the discrepancies indicated by the judge in her decision did not exist; (b) Morival Favoreto’s testimony was only received on March 9, 1999; (c) there is no number on the receipt submitted by the latter, so that it could have been issued and signed on any date, without it being possible to verify when it really was issued; (d) the said receipt and the testimony of Eduardo Minutoli Junior and Flair Carrilho do not prove the presence of Morival Favoreto in São Bernardo do Campo on November 27, 1998; (e) despite this and the identification of Morival Favoreto by witnesses, the Public Prosecutor’s Office understood that there was insufficient evidence to clarify the authorship of the crime and requested the closure of the investigation; (f) neither Vanderlei Garibaldi, who was an eye witness to the murder of Sétimo Garibaldi, nor the presumed purchaser of the pick-up truck that Morival Favoreto may have used during the eviction operation were summoned to give testimony; (g) the Public Prosecutor’s Office made no mention of the disappearance of the weapon seized during the investigation; (h) the alleged discrepancies in the testimony of the landless workers indicated by police clerk Ribeiro did not exist, as shown by the statements of these witnesses and of the military police who arrived at the scene of the crime and detained Ailton Lobato in flagrante delicto, and (i) Judge Khater did not provide grounds for her decision to close the Investigation. Regarding the delay in this procedure, the representatives indicated that this case was not complex because there was sufficient information about the masterminds and perpetrators, as well as the testimony of witnesses. Regarding the procedural activity of the interested party, even though the Investigation had been closed, Iracema Garibaldi filed a mandado de segurança to ensure her right that the investigation into the murder should continue. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the partiality and negligence with which the police and judicial authorities treated Sétimo Garibaldi’s death is obvious. In conclusion, it is evident from the facts that there was no justification whatsoever for the delay in the Police Investigation, and much less for its closure. 105. Regarding the re-opening of the Investigation, the representatives considered that this was just one more example of the irregularities in the procedure, because the supposed new evidence was already in the case file. This State action confirms that there were sufficient elements to sustain the opinio delicti and, consequently, not to close the Investigation. They underscored that none of the members of Sétimo Garibaldi’s family were called on to give testimony before the police, so that the re-opening of the Investigation was only a maneuver by the State to absolve itself from the violations that occurred in this case. Based on the above, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right to judicial protection and to judicial guarantees of Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin. 106. The State alleged that the Court has jurisdiction to examine domestic investigations and judicial proceedings only when serious irregularities are involved, and this did not