30 happen in the instant case. It considered that there were no errors in the Investigation that would invalidate the whole procedure. Brazilian law provides for “an adequate and rational control of the general procedure to close investigations.” The Public Prosecutor’s Office exercises the external control of criminal investigations carried out by the police and is the only body that can request the competent judge to order the closure of an investigation or the filing of a criminal action. In Brazil, the principle of the obligatory nature of criminal prosecution is enshrined in law; consequently, there is an obligation to file a criminal action upon verification that evidence exists that a crime has been committed, and regarding the authorship. In addition, based on the principle of functional independence, the Constitution guarantees the Public Prosecutor’s Office the freedom to form its own opinion when examining the requirements to file criminal charges. Furthermore, the closure of the investigation requires an explanation of the reasons for this request as well as subsequent judicial control, precisely to preclude failure to comply with the principle of the obligatory nature of criminal prosecution. Also, decisions to bring charges or to close an investigation can be reviewed by the head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the request of the competent judge of the criminal action. In addition, should new evidence arise, the Public Prosecutor’s Office retains the ability to re-open the investigation. In this regard, the testimony given by the witnesses Vanderlei Garibaldi and Giovani Braun during the processing of the instant case was considered new evidence and, consequently, the Investigation was re-opened. This occurred soon after the public hearing, because it was only then that the Public Prosecutor’s Office examined this evidence. The representatives could have sent the said statements directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, thus avoiding submission of the application. 107. In response to the alleged irregularities indicated in the application, the State affirmed, among other matters, that: (a) it had carried out an expert appraisal of the seized weapon, which was inconclusive as regards the last time it was fired; (b) police clerk Ribeiro, in charge of the investigation, searched the hacienda where Ailton Lobato was arrested for weapons but found none; (c) Morival Favoreto was questioned about his weapon and stated that he did not carry one; (d) Ailton Lobato was questioned, but exercised his constitutional right to remain silent; (e) Morival Favoreto was not questioned about the other members of the armed group, because he denied having participated in the crime; neither was Ailton Lobato, because he exercised his right to remain silent; (f) statements were not taken from the other owners of the Hacienda, because they were not identified by the witnesses as participants in the operation; (g) an investigation was carried out with regard to the F1000 pick-up, and it was verified that it had been sold before the eviction; also, Morival Favoreto denied that he owned the D-20 pick-up, and (h) it was not necessary to carry out an expert appraisal of the receipt for the doctor’s visit, because Dr. Flair Carrilho confirmed that he had issued it and said that he did not keep a record of those who accompanied his patients during their visits. The State also emphasized that: Morival Favoreto testified twice; the police went to the scene of the crime; statements were taken in other jurisdictions by means of official requests; the pre-trial detention of Morival Favoreto was requested; expert appraisals were carried out and diverse statements were taken. Furthermore, the State acknowledged that a ballistic comparison between the seized weapon and the cartridges found at the scene of the crime could have been performed. Consequently, in its opinion, with the exception of the absence of the appraisal, there were no errors in the investigation that the State should rectify. 108. In addition, Brazil indicated that the absence of a concluding report is not an irregularity in police investigations, because there is no legal provision that prohibits the closure of these procedures before the concluding report of the chief of police has been presented. Regarding the judge’s failure to provide grounds for her decision in favor of closing the Investigation, this is common practice when a judge agrees with the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the respective request, and it has been accepted by the case law of the Federal Supreme Court. With regard to the testimony of the victim’s