36 132. Article 5, paragraph XII, of the Brazilian Constitution establishes that the confidentiality of telephone conversations is inviolable, except in the circumstances and as established by law for purposes of a criminal investigation or for the preliminary investigation in a criminal action. The constitutional provision is regulated in ordinary law by Law No. 9,296/96, which establishes that the telephone interception may be requested by the police authority in a criminal investigation, or by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in a criminal or pre-trial investigation. In addition, a judge may authorize the measure ex officio. In any of these circumstances, reasonable indications of the authorship or participation in a criminal offense of the individual subjected to the measure must be provided, and also that the evidence cannot be obtained by other means. The interception procedure is subject to judicial control. The judge who authorizes it should duly found the decision; indicate the manner and the maximum period of the procedure, which is 15 days that may be extended for a similar period provided it is determined that this means of obtaining evidence is essential, and communicate the order to the Office of the Prosecutor General, who may supervise its execution. These elements allow the Court to consider that, in general, this law is in conformity with the Convention. Therefore, the Court will proceed to examine whether the telephone interception procedure that is the object of this case is in keeping with this norm, and thus complied with the requirement of legality. Purpose of the application for telephone interception and processing of the case file – Articles 1 and 8 of Law No. 9,296/96128 133. According to Article 1 of Law No. 9,296/96, telephone interception must be for the purpose of a criminal investigation or for the preliminary investigation in a criminal action. In this case, even though the application made by Major Neves indicated the need to investigate alleged criminal practices, namely the murder of Eduardo Aghinoni and the diversion of public funds, it was not submitted within the framework of an investigative procedure aimed at verifying those facts. The interception application did not even mention the murder investigation for which the civil police of Querência do Norte were responsible, and neither was the respective police chief notified in this regard.129 In addition, there is no evidence that, at the time of the facts, an investigation was underway for the supposed diversion of public funds by COANA and ADECON leaders. The application by Sergeant Silva did not indicate the purpose of the intended interceptions or their connection to a criminal investigation or proceeding. Thus, contrary to Article 8 of Law No. 9,296/96, the monitoring petition was a separate procedure, and was not processed in proceedings linked to a previously-established police investigation or criminal proceeding. Therefore, both requests failed to comply with the provisions of the said Articles. 128 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996. Article 1. The interception of telephone communications of any nature to obtain evidence in a criminal investigation and in pre-trial criminal proceedings shall comply with the provisions of this act and shall depend on the order of the competent judge of the principal action, respecting judicial confidentiality. […] Art. 8. The interception of telephone communications of any nature shall be recorded in autonomous case files, attached to the case file of the police investigation or the criminal proceedings, preserving the confidentiality of the respective procedures, recordings and transcripts. 129 According to the prosecutor, Nayani Kelly Garcia, the chief of civil police of Loanda and Querência do Norte did not know that this measure had been executed. She also indicated that “the [said official] was involved in the investigation into the death of Eduardo [Aghinoni] and, in this investigation, there was no record of the telephone interception,” and that she had received “an official communication from the Civil Police affirming that it had not played a part in the [procedure].” Brief of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of September 8, 2000, in the context of Monitoring Petition No. 41/99, supra note 84, folio 2218, and testimony of the prosecutor, Nayani Kelly Garcia, in the context of criminal investigation No. 82.561-5, supra note 72, folio 1560.