23 b) next of kin or associates of deceased military police officer Júlio Lima, because of the link between the brother of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho and the death of this military police officer. c) Gilmar Francisco Nogueira de Carvalho, the attorney's brother, was acquitted of the charge of homicide in the death of Júlio Lima; d) political authorities in the city of Macaíba, as the murder took place around the time of municipal elections, and Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho had objected to the candidacy of several individuals and had been involved in the campaign; e) cattle buyers, whose interests may have been undermined in court trials defended by Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; f) thieves attacking the company Empresa Nordeste; and g) car thieves, because a stolen automobile was used in the murder.27 67.11. On November 22, 1996, the police chief responsible for the investigation requested more time to complete the work, based on “the difficulty of the case.” The request was granted by the judge of the first Chamber of the Court of Macaíba, who granted a 30-day extension to conduct the final proceedings. On January 14 and March 25, 1997, additional 60-day extensions were granted.28 67.12. On June 9, 1997, the Federal Police Chief submitted his report on the investigation into the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, stating that “the case file lacks sufficient means to identify the perpetrator,” and therefore he considered the work to be finished and suggested that the investigation be dropped. That same day, based on this report, the Office of the Public Prosecutor concluded that, even though dozens of proceedings had been conducted as part of the investigation and extensive effort and dedication had been invested in finding the perpetrators of the death of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, insufficient grounds had been turned up to charge anyone for having committed the crime. On June 19, 1997, in view of the position taken by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and in the understanding that “all legal and other potential formulas for solving the crime [had been exhausted] without producing a logical conclusion concerning the identity of the perpetrator or possible perpetrators,” the Judge of the First Chamber of the Courts of Macaíba granted the request to drop the investigation, emphasizing that it might be reopened if new, well-founded information were to appear.29 Cf. trial documents by Federal Police Chief Gilson José Ribeiro Campos, December 20, 1996 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 3, folios 3404 through 3408); police investigation report No.296/96-SR/DPF/RN, June 9, 1997, supra note 21; Movimiento Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Regional Nordeste, Coleção Oxente, supra note 18; judgment by the Presiding Judge of the jury trial to acquit Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva, June 17, 1997 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 13, folio 5961); and testimony of Gilson José Ribeiro Campos and Fernando Batista de Vasconcelos given before the Court in the public hearing on February 8, 2006. 27 28 Cf. writ of Federal Police Chief Gilson José Ribeiro Campos, November 22, 1996 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 2, folio 3161); and judicial decrees by the Judge of the First Chamber of the Macaíba Court, Tálita de Borba Maranhão e Silva, November 26, 1996, January 14 and March 25, 1997 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 2, folios 3163, 3412 and 3517, respectively). 29 Cf. report of police investigation No.296/96-SR/DPF/RN, June 9, 1997, supra note 21; brief by the prosecuting attorney of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, José Augusto Perez Filho, June 9, 1997 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 4, folios 3773 and 3774); and decree by of the Judge of the First Chamber of the Courts of Macaíba, June 19, 1997 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 4, folios 3775 and 3776).