31 son, Vanderlei Garibaldi, the State maintained that it was not obliged to receive it, because article 6, paragraph IV, of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely establishes that, if he/she is alive, the victim should be heard. In relation to the alleged disappearance of the weapon seized from Ailton Lobato, it advised that the said piece of evidence was sent to the Institute of Forensic Science for an expert appraisal and, despite the presentation of the respective findings on June 1, 2000, there is no record in the case file that the weapon was returned to the Police Headquarters. Hence, the fact that the court does not have the weapon “does not mean that it has been lost; it could still be in the custody of the Civil Police or of the Institute of Forensic Science that performed the expert appraisal.” Regarding the reasons for the lapses when no measures were taken during the Investigation, the respective case file contains the explanations, which include legal holidays, the workload, and delays while waiting for compliance with official requests sent to other jurisdictions. Successive extensions of the time limit for concluding an investigation are established in article 10, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are restricted to the time limit for prescription of the offense investigated, which, in the case of murder, is 20 years. In the State’s opinion, there was no negligence in the way the investigation was conducted. 109. According to the State, in the instant case, the prosecutor examined all the evidence produced during the Investigation and concluded that it was a hooded individual who shot Sétimo Garibaldi, and not Morival Favoreto or Ailton Lobato. The prosecutor also stated in her opinion that there were contradictions in the testimony given by the rural workers, and that it could not be inferred that the other members of the armed group were in agreement with the murder. Consequently, when analyzing whether the probative material was sufficient and reasonable to support the accusation at a trial, the prosecutor acted based on her personal conviction, protected by the principle of functional independence, and considered it imprudent to file a criminal complaint. The said prosecutor also stated that, owing to the absence of evidence provided by the witnesses that could identify the other members of the armed group, she did not see how to clarify the authorship of the crime and, thus, opted to close the investigation. 110. Lastly, the State indicated that, in other cases of agrarian conflict in the state of Paraná, the Public Prosecutor’s Office emitted its opinio delicti and filed criminal actions for the perpetration of crimes, some of which had been committed against members of MST. Brazil affirmed that it had a consistent policy of combating violence in rural areas and, in this regard, mentioned the Paz no Campo program, whose activities include receiving complaints, mediating conflicts and training mediators throughout the country. It also stressed that the National Program to Combat Violence in Rural Areas had established specific legal mechanisms, such as courts, prosecutors’ offices, and police headquarters specialized in investigating agrarian conflicts. Based on the foregoing, the State asked the Court to consider irreceivable the allegations of violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. C) Legal considerations 111. In previous cases, the Court has recognized the necessary relationship between the general obligation to guarantee rights indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention and the specific rights protected by this instrument.94 The said obligation to guarantee rights gives rise to State obligations to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights established in the 94 Cf. Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 59, para. 98.