29 104. Following the destruction of the tapes, the COANA and ADECON lawyer requested authorization to obtain a complete copy of the proceedings of the monitoring petition on three different occasions and this was granted.96 1(ii) Legal actions and normative framework a) Criminal investigation and proceedings 105. On August 19, 1999, MST and CPT filed before the Prosecutor General’s Office a representação criminal against the former Secretary of Security, Judge Khater, Colonel Kretschmer, Major Neves and Sergeant Silva, asking that their conduct be investigated for possible perpetration of the offenses of usurpation of public functions, illegal telephone interception, violation of judicial confidentiality, and abuse of authority.97 The Prosecutor General’s Office sent the notitia criminis to the Court of Justice and criminal investigation No. 82,516-5 was opened, as required by the representação criminal.98 On October 6, 2000, the Special Organ of the Court of Justice issued decision No. 4745 ordering the closure of all the investigations against the public officials mentioned in relation to the telephone interception, and that the case file be sent to a court of first instance for the analysis of the conduct of the former Secretary of Security in relation to the dissemination of the intercepted conversations. In its decision, the Court of Justice considered that the errors in which Judge Khater had incurred constituted, on first analysis, errors related to her functions99 (infra para. 201). 106. On April 11, 2001, once the investigation had concluded, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a complaint against the former Secretary of Security,100 who was sentenced in first instance by a decision of the Second Criminal Court of the Comarca of Curitiba of December 23, 2003, to a fine and to two years and four months’ imprisonment, with the latter substituted by community service.101 On January 19, 2004, the former Secretary of Security filed an appeal against this decision before the Court of Justice. On October 14, 2004, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice revoked the conviction and acquitted the former Secretary of Security, based on the argument that “the appellant did not violate the judicial confidentiality of the information obtained through the telephone interception, because it was not possible to violate […] the confidentiality of information that had been disseminated the previous day by a television station.”102 b) Mandado de segurança 107. On October 5, 1999, the organizations COANA and ADECON, and Arlei José Escher, Celso Aghinoni and Avanilson Alves Araújo filed before the Court of Justice of the state of 96 Cf. Requests of December 6, 2002, and of April 2 and 5, 2004, for complete copies of the case file of the Monitoring Petition (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 10, folios 2223 to 2225). 97 Cf. Representação criminal filed before the Prosecutor General’s Office on August 19, 1999, supra note 72, folios 1212 to 1227. 98 Cf. Criminal investigation No. 82,516-5 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 3, folios 1303 and 1304). 99 Cf. Decision No. 4745 of the Special Organ of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 6, 2000, supra note 27, folios 98 to 107. 100 Cf. Complaint of the Prosecutor General’s Office of April 11, 2001, against the former Secretary of Security (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 3, folios 1208 and 1209). 101 Cf. Decision of the Second Criminal Court of the District of Curitiba of December 23, 2003, in the context of criminal action No. 2001.2125-5 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 4, folio 1741). 102 Cf. Decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 14, 2004, supra note 27, folio 114.