30 Paraná a mandado de segurança against Judge Khater, requesting the suspension of the telephone interceptions and the destruction of the recorded tapes.103 108. On April 5, 2000, the Court of Justice ordered the extinction of the mandado de segurança without ruling on its merits, considering that the interceptions had ceased and that the action had therefore lost its purpose.104 Consequently, the authors of this action filed embargos de declaração, in order to clarify the omissions in the judgment, in particular the failure of the Court of Justice to rule on the request for destruction of the tapes.105 109. On June 7, 2000, this recourse was rejected based on the argument that this request could only be examined if the merits of the mandado de segurança had been examined and that, since the latter had extinguished without an examination of the merits, there were no omission in the judgment.106 The presumed victims did not file other remedies and the decision of the Court of Justice became final on August 28, 2000.107 c) Administrative proceedings 110. On November 17, 1999, an administrative complaint was filed against Judge Khater. It was processed under case file No 1999.118105 and, among other matters, it referred to the judge’s conduct in the context of the monitoring petition.108 On September 28, 2001, the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça (Judicial Administrative Department)109 decided several administrative complaints filed against Judge Khater, including the one relating to the instant case.110 The Corregedoria-Geral considered that the “matter was assessed during criminal investigation No. 85516-2 and the decision […] understood that the offenses of usurpation of public functions, abuse of authority and responsibility with which [Judge Khater] and others had been charged had not been committed” and ordered that the case be closed.111 Subsequently, responding to the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission’s Report on Merits No. 14/07, the Special Human Rights Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic sent the case to the National Council of Justice for review.112 The latter rejected this request, because it understood that “the criminal action had dealt with the matter […] and had not left any [aspect pending] for proceedings by the judicial administrative body, and there was an evident lack of interest in this proceeding.”113 103 Cf. Record of the registration and opening of the procedure of Mandado de segurança No. 83,486-6, supra note 23, folios 1007 to 1018. 104 Cf. Decision of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of April 5, 2000, in the context of mandado de segurança N° 83,486-6 (file of attachments to the application, tome I, attachment 7, folios 93 and 94). 105 Cf. Brief of April 26, 2000, filing embargos de declaração (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 2, folios 1181 to 1183). 106 Cf. Decision of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of June 7, 2000, in the context of embargos de declaração No. 83,486-6/01 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 2, folios 1192 to 1199). 107 Cf. Certification of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of August 28, 2000 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome I, attachment 7, folio 2123). 108 Cf. Decision of the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça of September 28, 2001 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome V, attachment 21, folio 3195). 109 3198. Cf. Decision of the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça of September 28, 2001, supra note 108, folios 3194 and 110 Cf. Decision of the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça of September 28, 2001, supra note 108, folio 3198). 111 Cf. Decision of the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça of September 28, 2001, supra note 108, folio 3195. 112 The National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça) is the constitutional organ with competence to supervise the administrative and financial aspects of the Judiciary, as well as due compliance by judges with their institutional duties. Brief of the State with final arguments (merits file, tome IV, folio 1802). 113 Cf. Opinion of the Conselho Nacional de Justiça of May 30, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome VIII, attachment 25, folio 3694).