37 Reasons for the telephone interception application – Articles 2 and 4 of Law No. 9,296/96130 134. Neither the interception requests nor the decisions granting them provided reasonable indications of authorship or participation of the members of COANA and ADECON in the criminal offenses supposedly investigated or the means to be used to implement the requested interception; also, they did not indicate clearly the facts that were the object of the investigation. Furthermore, they failed to show that the means used was the only one possible to obtain the said evidence. Consequently, Articles 2 and 4 of Law No. 9,296/96 were not respected. Authorities empowered to request telephone interceptions – Article 3 of Law No. 9,296/96131 135. Regarding the persons authorized to request telephone interceptions, Article 3 of Law No. 9,296/96 establishes that the police authority may do this within the framework of a criminal investigation. In this regard, the expert witness, Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis Moura indicated that when Law No. 9,296/96 entered into force “a difference of opinion [had arisen] as to which police force would be responsible for carrying out the request, [and] if the term police authority referred only to the civil police or also to the Military Police.” This expert witness stated that, “if an ongoing investigation exists, it is easy to see who should be responsible for the request. If the investigation was being conducted by the civil police, the police authority would normally be the head of the civil police [or] the Secretary for Public Security.”132 While the expert witness, Luiz Flávio Gomes, said that “the said police authority can be a member of the Military Police, in the hypothesis that a military investigation is involved.”133 130 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996, supra note 128, folio 54. Article 2. The interception of telephone communications shall not be admitted in the following hypotheses: I. There are no reasonable indications of authorship or participation in the criminal offense; II. The evidence can be obtained by other available means; […] Sole paragraph. In any case, the situation that is the purpose of the investigation must be described clearly, indicating and categorizing those investigated, except in cases of duly justified evident impossibility.[…] Article 4. The request for telephone communication interception shall include proof that it is necessary in order to verify a criminal offense, with an indication of the means to be used. […] 131 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996, supra note 128, folio 54. Article 3. The interception of telephone communications may be decided by the judge, ex officio, or following a request: I. By the police authority, in a criminal investigation; II. By the representative of the Prosecutor General’s Office, in a criminal investigation and in a pretrial criminal investigation. 132 Cf. Expert opinion of Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis Moura at the public hearing, supra note 22. 133 Cf. Expert opinion of Luiz Flávio Gomes (merits file, tome IV, folio 1077).