55 (supra paras. 37, 94 and 97). Consequently, the mandado de segurança was unable to produce the desired result in the specific case, not because of a circumstance that could be attributed to the State or to the victims, but because the facts that were alleged to have violated specific rights had ceased. Also, the request for the destruction of the tapes included in the mandado de segurança was not the appropriate mechanism for producing a suspension of the interception and the dissemination that had already taken place, but was aimed at preventing fresh disseminations in the future (supra para. 38), so that its analysis does not form part of the merits of the instant case. The Court also observes that domestic law includes remedies that could result in the destruction of the tapes, which were not used in this case (supra para. 37). Consequently, the Court finds no evidence that there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in this regard. 2) Criminal jurisdiction 200. According to the facts and the evidence in the case file, criminal investigation No. 82,516-5 originated from a complaint against the former Secretary of Security, Judge Khater, Colonel Kretschmer, Major Neves and Sergeant Silva, for the possible perpetration of the offenses of usurpation of public functions, illegal telephone interception, breach of judicial confidentiality, and abuse of authority. This investigation culminated in decision No. 4745 of the Special Organ of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná deciding to close this proceeding against the said public officials as regards the telephone interception, and to forward the case file to a court of first instance for the examination of the conduct of the former Secretary of Security in relation to the intercepted conversations (supra para. 105). 201. To reach this conclusion, the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná considered that the “mere request for a telephone interception does not constitute […] a criminal offense, so that the conduct of the military police involved does not fall with the definition of an offense.”178 Regarding the actions of Judge Khater, it considered that “despite the errors made by the judge, which on first examination constitute function-related errors,”179 it had not been proved that she acted with criminal intent, so that she could not be considered to have committed a criminal act. Lastly, in relation to the actions of the former Secretary of Security, it considered that “[his] situation is different because it has been proved that during the collective interview he disseminated the content of the intercepted conversations and even decided to distribute abundant material in this regard.”180 202. From the evidence in the case file, the Court finds that the statements of those allegedly responsible were taken during the criminal investigation, together with those of the complainants and of other persons. Based on these statements, and on the legal considerations mentioned above (supra para. 201) the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná considered that the only conduct that could be criminally prosecuted was that of the former Secretary of Security. The Court finds that the body of evidence does not include elements for analyzing a possible violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with regard to this first phase of the criminal proceedings. 203. Pursuant to the ruling of the said court, a criminal action was filed against the former Secretary of Security for the alleged dissemination of the intercepted telephone conversations and the said official was sentenced and convicted in first instance by a 178 Decision No. 4745 of the Special Organ of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 6, 2000, supra note 27, folio 102. 179 Decision No. 4745 of the Special Organ of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 6, 2000, supra note 27, folio 104. 180 Decision No. 4745 of the Special Organ of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 6, 2000, supra note 27, folio 105.