record in the case file that the state authorities investigated the circumstances of these deaths or the possibility that they were connected to the criminal trial. This grave omission on the part of the State heightens the sense of impunity and undermines the authority of the courts in the eyes of the defendants. 99. Regarding the duty to exhaust all lines of investigation and take all investigative measures necessary to identify those responsible, the Court notes that in the “pronúncia” judgment from August of 2000, the judge decided that it was improper to present the case against C.O.S. to the Jury Court due to a lack of evidence, despite the fact that the final report of the police investigations included sufficient circumstantial evidence of his involvement in the crime; that the prosecutor in the case noted that Mr. Oliveira de Sousa had not been subjected to identification by the eyewitness, Luzia Batista da Silva, or by Neuzila Jardim Cerqueira, who was with Gabriel Sales Pimenta at the time of his death; and that C.O.S. was known as a gunman of J.P.N. in the region 168 and possibly the shooter in this case. Thus, the Court notes that the identity of the individual who shot Gabriel Sales Pimenta was never clearly determined. 100. Furthermore, the Court notes the absence, at several procedural stages, of measures sufficient to ensure the progress of the proceedings and the appearance of M.C.N. It was confirmed that because the State did not act with due diligence in enforcing the detention orders issued during the proceedings, the defendants whose pretrial detention had been ordered were able to flee. The Court notes the State’s failure to act even when the whereabouts of the defendant M.C.N. were wellknown. 169 For example, after M.C.N.'s failure to appear at procedural steps that required his presence, 170 the Public Prosecutor's Office requested his pretrial detention on April 23, 2002 (twenty years after the death of Gabriel Sales Pimenta), but it was only after the defendant failed to appear at the first session of the Jury Court, set for May 23, 2002, that the judge with jurisdiction issued the requested order. 171 Despite this, there is no record that any measures were taken to detain M.C.N. over the next three years. What is clear is that it was not until four years later, 172 in February of 2006, that by the judge’s order, a Federal Police team was formed to locate the defendant. 173 101. In addition, the Court holds that sending the criminal case on the death of Gabriel Sales Pimenta to the newly-created Agrarian Court in February of 2004—where it remained for a year and five months, despite the fact that the Jury Court obviously had jurisdiction to prosecute deliberate crimes against life (under Article 5, paragraph XXXVIII, “d,” of the Brazilian Constitution)—was another example of the State’s lack of due diligence in this case. on August 2, 1982 (evidence file, folios 2273–2274); and Certificate of new questioning of Luzia Batista da Silva on July 13, 1983 (evidence file, folios 2276–2279). 168 Cf. Report issued by the police commissioner, supra (evidence file, folios 2264–2267). For example, during the public hearing held on March 22, 2022, both Rafael Sales Pimenta and the expert witness Dissenha mentioned widely disseminated reporting in the magazine Isto É on November 12, 1986, which included a photo of the defendant next to his brother—at the time the Governor of Minas Gerais—as well as the President of the Republic at the time. 169 170 M.C.N. failed to appear at the first hearing, which had been scheduled for December 27, 1983. He also failed to appear at six subsequent hearings. Cf. Service by publication of M.C.N. and C.O.S. for hearing on April 27, 1984 (evidence file, folio 2340), Certificate of the officer of the court from December 22, 1983 (evidence file, folio 2331), Orders issued on August 24 and November 22, 1984 (evidence file, folios 2348–2351), and Orders of August 5, 1985, and March 19, 1986 (evidence file, folios 2352–2353). 171 Cf. Pretrial detention order No. 0272/2002 from May 23, 2002 (evidence file, folio 2541) and Decision issued by the assigned judge of law on May 23, 2002 (evidence file, folio 2536–2538). Cf. Letter No. 45/2006-GAB/DPF.B/MBA/PA signed by the chief of the Federal Police office in Marabá on February 24, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2613). 172 M.C.N.'s own attorney highlighted the failure of state authorities to exercise due diligence to locate him quickly. Cf. Habeas corpus filed on behalf of M.C.N. before the Joint Criminal Division of the Court of Justice of Pará on April 18, 2006 (evidence file, folio 2630). 173 29