39 hearing the other party, the grounds and justification must show that all the legal requirements and other elements that justify granting or refusing the measure have been taken into consideration. Hence, the judge must state his or her opinion, respecting adequate and effective guarantees against possible illegalities and arbitrariness in the procedure in question. 140. Contrary to the foregoing, Judge Khater authorized the telephone interceptions with a mere annotation that she had received and examined the requests and granted them: “R. and A. Defiro. Oficie-se.” In her decision, the judge did not explain her analysis of the legal requirements or the elements that caused her to grant the measure, or the way in which the procedure should be carried out or its duration; this entailed a limitation of a fundamental right of the alleged victims in violation of Article 5 of Law No. 9,296/96. 141. As regards the duration of the measures authorized, the Court finds that the telephone interceptions started as of the second judicial order, which responded to the intervention request submitted by Sergeant Silva on May 12, 1999. The latter expanded the purpose of the interception request of May 3, 1999, asking that the monitoring of the ADECON telephone line should be included in the procedure (supra paras. 90 to 92). Hence, as explained by the State itself, “the first judicial authorization [of May 5, 1999] never came into effect, because it was absorbed by the second authorization, granted to the request made by [Sergeant Silva]”. Consequently, the first phase of the interception of the two telephone lines took place over thirteen days, from May 14 to 26, 1999, based on the abovementioned second judicial authorization. The next stage of interception took place over a period of twenty-two days, from June 9 to 30, 1999 (supra para. 97), in violation of Article 5 of Law No. 9,296/96, which states that the measures may not exceed 15 days, renewable for the same period of time provided that the essential nature of the evidence had been confirmed. In this context, the Court emphasizes that there was no request or authorization to extend the telephone interceptions in the monitoring petition procedure. To the contrary, on May 25, 1999, Major Neves requested the Loanda Court to end the interceptions, and Judge Khater authorized this on the same date. Consequently, the second period of interception was carried out without the authorization of the competent judge, in violation of Article 1 of Law No. 9,296/96. Moreover, that could be considered an offense in light of Article 10 of the said law, which establishes that “it is an offense to carry out telephone communication interceptions […] without judicial authorization or for purposes that are not authorized by law.”138 Notification of the Prosecutor General’s Office and transcript of the tapes – Article 6 of Law No. 9,296/96139 142. Article 6 of Law No. 9,296/96 establishes that, when the request has been granted, the police authority shall conduct the interception procedure and shall communicate the 138 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996, supra note 128, folio 55. Article 10. The interception of telephone, electronic or telematic communications or the breach of judicial confidentiality without judicial authorization or for purposes that are not authorized by law is an offense. Penalty: two to four years’ imprisonment and a fine. 139 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996, supra note 128, folio 55. Article 6. When the request has been approved, the police authority will conduct the interception procedure, notifying the Prosecutor General’s Office, who may supervise implementation. 1. If the procedure makes it possible to record the intercepted communication, it shall be transcribed. 2. When the procedure has been completed, the police authority shall submit the result of the interception to the judge, accompanied by a detailed report, which should contain a summary of the operations conducted. 3. After the judge has received these elements, he or she shall determine the measure under art. 8, and it shall be notified to the Prosecutor General’s Office.